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

[ryde]

SPML AND ALL THE OTHER LENDERS(EXC SPPL)

Accounting Reference Date: 30/11

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/11/2007 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2009 OVERDUE

Last Return Made Up To: 20/09/2009

Next Return Due: 18/10/2010

To try and clarify the account situation.

1)They have 9 months by law from last accounts to submit their 2008 accounts which were therefore due on 30/09/09.

They are therefore in breach of the law/rules by 5 months .CH must be fully aware of this.So what is going on.

2)Preferred group and holdings both seperate limited companies have both been operating without directors since 15/10/09 I think this has only just been discovered and sced has probably made the first and possibly only complaint so this needs to be followed up.

3)LMC no directors

PLEASE CAN EVERYONE GIVE THIS THEIR ABSOLUTE AND FULL ATTENTION

lets find the applicable law and email everyone we can quoting the rules and up to ministerial level if needs be.

Help me find the info and we can do a draft so we can all cite the correct legal information and question the progress of any procedural action by actually throwing their own rules at them.

IE THERE IS A TIME LIMIT SET BY YOUR OWN RULES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND OF WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN MADE FULLY AWARE WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN THE APPROPRIATE PRESCRIBED ACTION.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde
RELEVANT ADDITION

[ryde]

SUPER

Hooray! Back on track

 

When you say SPPL have been reported for fraudulent activity, to whom have they reported...the Serious Fraud Office, the Police, who?? And exactly which one (or which ones) of their fraudulent activities are the nature of the report?your quote

 

Have just read this on the other thread as posted by jetli,agree its essential to find out the details especially if its criminal but shes wrapped up in her own eviction order at present and is not on site.

[supersleuth]

Hi Ryde,

 

Ministerial level...that would be Mandy then.

[ryde]

Think ian lucas is in charge of CH.

[supersleuth]

Jetli may be interested in this. Enforcement of Eviction warrants.

 

Go to the court and insist on a copy of the Warrant. Usually, both the court and the bank will want to conceal the warrant from you...but...if the Warrant is issued against YOU (which it is) and if they are enforcing a warrant against YOU then they must let you have a copy of it. See CPR Part 5 which states that a person has the right to see documents on the file concerning HIS/HER case. The reason why you want a copy of the actual warrant is (1) the bank MUST certify the costs of the litigation on the certificate (which they usually don't so that they can shaft you for extortionate costs later); and (2) because at law, there can be no enforcement until the litigation costs have been decided (and in the context of repossession, the borrower is never ever told what the litigation costs so the costs are never "decided").

 

Anyway, when researching the law on enforcement of Warrants, I noticed that the County Court Bailiff does not have jurisdiction to enforce a warrant that is for a judgment in excess of £5,000.

 

Here's the relevant laws/rules:

 

1.The Warrant should be set aside or stayed on the grounds that the Warrant is void and unenforceable for want of compliance with the law. The Warrant is void at law because:

i.The Respondent cannot lawfully make a request for enforcement of its Order until it has complied with CPR Part 70 r.70.1.3. (Note, that CPR rule refers to the fact that a judgment cannot be enforced until costs have been decided. Usually, the bankers will not tell the borrower what the costs of litigation were because they want to shaft them on costs later. Thus, this rule is never complied with by the banks nor the courts.) On the ground that that rule is not satisfied, the Respondent was not lawfully entitled to make its Form 325 Request (note, this is the form used by the banks to request the warrant be issued) and is not entitled to enforce its Order;

ii.The Request was not in compliance with law on the grounds that the certifications that are that are mandated under CCR Ord. 26 r. 17(3A) are wholly absent. The court clerk erred at law when it considered and granted the Respondent’s Form 325 Request;

iii.The Warrant is ultra vires on the grounds that it has been issued in excess of its county court jurisdiction under s.85 of the County Courts Act 1984. On the grounds that s.85 is expressly made subject to article 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, the county court does not have jurisdiction to enforce an Order in excess of £5,000.

2.In these premises, the Warrant and the Notice of eviction should be set-aside or stayed or postponed.

 

Therefore, anyone who wishes to research and use this argument and/or give it to their legal representative to argue it, has all the rules and legal pointers that you need.

Point is, the county court may have jurisdiction (power) to order the repossession, but it does not have jurisdiction (power) to enforce its order. The order needs a High Court Warrant.

Therefore, if a County Court Judge says that it has got jurisdiction, ask the judge exactly which rule of law gives it its jurisdictional powers. They are certaintly not in The County Court Act nor Article 8 of the Statutory Instrument. If anyone does know where the County Court may found its jurisdiction to enforce orders in excess of £5000, it would be interesting to know. One thing I know for certain, the County Court Judges (of one court) didn't know and couldn't say and nor could the barrister...the Judge just got his knickers in a twist over the question and went into a teenage tantrum...basically because the County Court Act doesn't give them jurisdiction to enforce a repossession order.

Edited February 17, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

A quick aside especially for dotty

if LMC have no directors they will not have anyone to sign their overdue accounts if they actually ever get the cleaner to submit them.

SUPER

believe jetli is being helped by Ell-en but will be most grateful for the info you've posted as will many others as few if any would be aware of this.

 

What a day got cag lag again I think.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

companies act 2006

company’s directors

 

Chapter 1 Appointment and removal of directors

 

Requirement to have directors

 

154 Companies required to have directors

 

(1) A private company must have at least one director.

(2) A public company must have at least two directors.

155 Companies required to have at least one director who is a natural person

 

(1) A company must have at least one director who is a natural person.

(2) This requirement is met if the office of director is held by a natural person as a corporation sole or otherwise by virtue of an office.

156 Direction requiring company to make appointment

 

(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a company is in breach of—

 

• section 154 (requirements as to number of directors), or
  
• section 155 (requirement to have at least one director who is a natural person),
  

the Secretary of State may give the company a direction under this section.

(2) The direction must specify—

(a) the statutory requirement the company appears to be in breach of,

(b) what the company must do in order to comply with the direction, and

© the period within which it must do so.

That period must be not less than one month or more than three months after the date on which the direction is given.

(3) The direction must also inform the company of the consequences of failing to comply.

(4) Where the company is in breach of section 154 or 155 it must comply with the direction by—

(a) making the necessary appointment or appointments, and

(b) giving notice of them under section 167,

before the end of the period specified in the direction.

(5) If the company has already made the necessary appointment or appointments (or so far as it has done so), it must comply with the direction by giving notice of them under section 167 before the end of the period specified in the direction.

(6) If a company fails to comply with a direction under this section, an offence is committed by—

(a) the company, and

(b) every officer of the company who is in default.

For this purpose a shadow director is treated as an officer of the company.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard scale.

[ryde]

Have read more on strike offs and its not encouraging news but everyone needs to be made aware of this especially those dependent on this happening.

Evidently the proposed strike off will be advertised in the london gazette and if anyone objects such as a creditor the strike off will be suspended,it would appear this can go on almost indefinetely,the usual objectors being creditors and who are the biggest creditors of sppl for example,yes you've guessed it all the others in the group.

Please I want to be so wrong so correct me.

 

Perhaps it would be an idea to change the emphasis from getting a strike off from CH which seems extremely long winded and protracted(with numerous adverts in the london gazette) to the insolvency side and the illegal repos with no directors etc,

THE OTHERS IN THE GROUP CAN JUST HOLD UP THE STRIKE OFF BY SAYING THEY'RE CREDITORS WHICH ON PAPER THEY ARE.

ITBG

What is your take on this and what would you suggest?

I have no doubts this group is under investigation the evidence being that the entire groups registers have all been moved to the single alternative inspection location very recently.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

..even so, there are NO directors of LMC/SPPL, so how can they authorise repos in courts? keep asking this question, contact the people above, i have had a written reply, get yours...Kevin Hughes WILL put it in writing to you, be polite but don't take no for an answer.

 

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[ryde]

This was a conversation several caggers have had with capstone staff

question:who owns my mortgage.

ans SPPL, so why are the bank paying my payments to SPML?,

ans: because we use lots different accounts,

SPPL have no directors so who do you take your instructions from?

ans Capstone own SPPL so we own your mortgage.

This conversation has happened more than once.

 

Comments.?

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

..lies, damn lies and JAWs.

 

 

anybody get an official letter from Capstone that their mortgage was assigned to them from SPPL, and proof of transfer provided by SPPL?

 

post it up if you can(edited).

 

 

most of the Capstone operators have rehearsed the script.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

Edited February 17, 2010 by I'm the bad guy?

[ryde]

Exactly Downright Fraudulent

[ryde]

Important notice to all those with monetary claims against sppl and lmc

 

Both have no directors or personell to defend any claim you make against them in a county court for unfair or illegal charges/fees.

If you have documentary proof or can obtain such it is suggested that it would be possible to issue a claim against them through the courts.

In most cases it might be possible to do this through the small claims court and online.It may also be possible to apply for fee remission if you are on a low income.

As they have no legally authourised personell to legally defend any claim the result should be a foregone conclusion.

It would also be impossible for capstone to step in saying they have current authorisation as sppl and lmc have no personell to give such current authorisation.

If just one person can try this and its successful the floodgates then open.

Its certainly an issue worthy of consideration.

 

the lone bloody ranger

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde

[jetli]

..even so, there are NO directors of LMC/SPPL, so how can they authorise repos in courts? keep asking this question, contact the people above, i have had a written reply, get yours...Kevin Hughes WILL put it in writing to you, be polite but don't take no for an answer.

 

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

Can you post the reply taking out your personal details as need all I got if it means that me and my family can stay together. I know what he said to me but posted this already. Been to court today after eviction order next week and got case fo suspension on FRIDAY

[ryde]

jetli

have posted on your repo thread while here take a good look at gwens posts which will apply to you in some form.This was a great success and a template as to how you could try and construct your defence.As time is short you have to get it done by tomorrow to run it past Ell-en(a must).

Have you contacted citizens advice to see if anyone will help you at the hearing.Anyone you can get will take a lot of pressure off you.

Edited February 17, 2010 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

..even so, there are NO directors of LMC/SPPL, so how can they authorise repos in courts? keep asking this question, contact the people above, i have had a written reply, get yours...Kevin Hughes WILL put it in writing to you, be polite but don't take no for an answer.

 

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

Can you post the reply taking out your personal details as need all I got if it means that me and my family can stay together. I know what he said to me but posted this already. Been to court today after eviction order next week and got case fo suspension on FRIDAY

 

 

..the letter from CH is 'private & confidential', so after the Pilcher debacle, I cannot afford to alienate another source. So call Kevin Hughes(don't say from CAG), explain you are facing eviction and require written/email letter stating the legitimacy of SPPL. Be polite but insistent, you have little time push him for a quick response. Then when you get it, if you have a duty solicitor at hand at court, give it to them, see if they can at least create doubt about the ability of SPPL to bring the repo.

 

CH:

1. Ask to confirm SPPL has no directors(no employees), 15th October 2009(check CH site for date), so how can a third party be instructed to act on their behalf?(shadow directors are illegal).

 

2. Get a copy of the latest copy of SPPL on this thread, it will confirm no employees and insolvent 'trading'.

 

3. Print off CH copy of strike off notice on CH website, absolute proof of no directors, and of no capacity of the company to bring this action against you.

 

4. Anybody..?

 

Get it all in front of the court, via duty solicitor, and liase with Ell-en with all of this.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[I'm the bad guy?]

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

its either

them or us

[jetli]

 

 

..the letter from CH is 'private & confidential', so after the Pilcher debacle, I cannot afford to alienate another source. So call Kevin Hughes(don't say from CAG), explain you are facing eviction and require written/email letter stating the legitimacy of SPPL. Be polite but insistent, you have little time push him for a quick response. Then when you get it, if you have a duty solicitor at hand at court, give it to them, see if they can at least create doubt about the ability of SPPL to bring the repo.

 

CH:

1. Ask to confirm SPPL has no directors(no employees), 15th October 2009(check CH site for date), so how can a third party be instructed to act on their behalf?(shadow directors are illegal).

 

2. Get a copy of the latest copy of SPPL on this thread, it will confirm no employees and insolvent 'trading'.

 

3. Print off CH copy of strike off notice on CH website, absolute proof of no directors, and of no capacity of the company to bring this action against you.

 

4. Anybody..?

 

Get it all in front of the court, via duty solicitor, and liase with Ell-en with all of this.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

Done most of this as you know!

[jetli]

jetli

have posted on your repo thread while here take a good look at gwens posts which will apply to you in some form.This was a great success and a template as to how you could try and construct your defence.As time is short you have to get it done by tomorrow to run it past Ell-en(a must).

Have you contacted citizens advice to see if anyone will help you at the hearing.Anyone you can get will thake a lot of pressure off you.

SORRY head still S*** after today please jut post me up what I need as finding it really hard to concentrate on all the new threads - I know I can rely on you Ryde:-)

[ryde]

 

 

..the letter from CH is 'private & confidential', so after the Pilcher debacle, I cannot afford to alienate another source. So call Kevin Hughes(don't say from CAG), explain you are facing eviction and require written/email letter stating the legitimacy of SPPL. Be polite but insistent, you have little time push him for a quick response. Then when you get it, if you have a duty solicitor at hand at court, give it to them, see if they can at least create doubt about the ability of SPPL to bring the repo.

 

CH:

1. Ask to confirm SPPL has no directors(no employees), 15th October 2009(check CH site for date), so how can a third party be instructed to act on their behalf?(shadow directors are illegal).

 

2. Get a copy of the latest copy of SPPL on this thread, it will confirm no employees and insolvent 'trading'.

 

3. Print off CH copy of strike off notice on CH website, absolute proof of no directors, and of no capacity of the company to bring this action against you.

 

4. Anybody..?

 

Get it all in front of the court, via duty solicitor, and liase with Ell-en with all of this.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

 

SOUND ADVICE ITBG

[Crapstone]

Jetli may be interested in this. Enforcement of Eviction warrants.

 

Go to the court and insist on a copy of the Warrant. Usually, both the court and the bank will want to conceal the warrant from you...but...if the Warrant is issued against YOU (which it is) and if they are enforcing a warrant against YOU then they must let you have a copy of it. See CPR Part 5 which states that a person has the right to see documents on the file concerning HIS/HER case. The reason why you want a copy of the actual warrant is (1) the bank MUST certify the costs of the litigation on the certificate (which they usually don't so that they can shaft you for extortionate costs later); and (2) because at law, there can be no enforcement until the litigation costs have been decided (and in the context of repossession, the borrower is never ever told what the litigation costs so the costs are never "decided").

 

Anyway, when researching the law on enforcement of Warrants, I noticed that the County Court Bailiff does not have jurisdiction to enforce a warrant that is for a judgment in excess of £5,000.

 

Here's the relevant laws/rules:

 

1.The Warrant should be set aside or stayed on the grounds that the Warrant is void and unenforceable for want of compliance with the law. The Warrant is void at law because:

i.The Respondent cannot lawfully make a request for enforcement of its Order until it has complied with CPR Part 70 r.70.1.3. (Note, that CPR rule refers to the fact that a judgment cannot be enforced until costs have been decided. Usually, the bankers will not tell the borrower what the costs of litigation were because they want to shaft them on costs later. Thus, this rule is never complied with by the banks nor the courts.) On the ground that that rule is not satisfied, the Respondent was not lawfully entitled to make its Form 325 Request (note, this is the form used by the banks to request the warrant be issued) and is not entitled to enforce its Order;

ii.The Request was not in compliance with law on the grounds that the certifications that are that are mandated under CCR Ord. 26 r. 17(3A) are wholly absent. The court clerk erred at law when it considered and granted the Respondent’s Form 325 Request;

iii.The Warrant is ultra vires on the grounds that it has been issued in excess of its county court jurisdiction under s.85 of the County Courts Act 1984. On the grounds that s.85 is expressly made subject to article 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, the county court does not have jurisdiction to enforce an Order in excess of £5,000.

2.In these premises, the Warrant and the Notice of eviction should be set-aside or stayed or postponed.

 

Therefore, anyone who wishes to research and use this argument and/or give it to their legal representative to argue it, has all the rules and legal pointers that you need.

Point is, the county court may have jurisdiction (power) to order the repossession, but it does not have jurisdiction (power) to enforce its order. The order needs a High Court Warrant.

Therefore, if a County Court Judge says that it has got jurisdiction, ask the judge exactly which rule of law gives it its jurisdictional powers. They are certaintly not in The County Court Act nor Article 8 of the Statutory Instrument. If anyone does know where the County Court may found its jurisdiction to enforce orders in excess of £5000, it would be interesting to know. One thing I know for certain, the County Court Judges (of one court) didn't know and couldn't say and nor could the barrister...the Judge just got his knickers in a twist over the question and went into a teenage tantrum...basically because the County Court Act doesn't give them jurisdiction to enforce a repossession order.

 

That doesn't hold any water. It's already been argued and discussed.

[Crapstone]

Important notice to all those with monetary claims against sppl and lmc

 

Both have no directors or personell to defend any claim you make against them in a county court for unfair or illegal charges/fees.

If you have documentary proof or can obtain such it is suggested that it would be possible to issue a claim against them through the courts.

In most cases it might be possible to do this through the small claims court and online.It may also be possible to apply for fee remission if you are on a low income.

As they have no legally authourised personell to legally defend any claim the result should be a foregone conclusion.

It would also be impossible for capstone to step in saying they have current authorisation as sppl and lmc have no personell to give such current authorisation.

If just one person can try this and its successful the floodgates then open.

 

Its certainly an issue worthy of consideration.

 

the lone bloody ranger

 

Where there's a will there are 'relatives'.

[uneverdid]

Hi can someone please advise me who SPPL are i originally took my mortgage out with preferred admininstered by capstone. My payments always appeared on my statements as capstone until roughly a year ago when they started appearing as SPML. As stated in my previous posts i queried this and was told its easier for capstone just to use one account as the administer several mortgage companies. I asked that it went on my statement as capstone and after much debating they agreed in writing to do this. However that was a few months ago and they have still not actioned this. They then asked for me to assign my insurance to eurosail which i have not done. When i queried preferred status and said that if i sold my house tomorrow should i make the cheque payable to preferred i was told quite clearly NO AS THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTS AS THEY ARE BEING DEALT WITH BY PRICE ??????(SORRY FORGOT THE REST OF NAME). They said i would have to make the cheque payable to SPML but my land registry records still show preferred as my mortgage company.

 

On another note they have taken up their option to restore my case to court following one missed payment in a year. However they have been very accommodating and have said if i make 2 normal monthly payments plus £50 they will cancel the new hearing. This has baffled me as they are normally unhelpful and downright nasty.

 

Could it be that they just want to grab as many payments before major decisions are made about their future.

 

Incidently they are claiming £5500 arrears however almost half of these are charges !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Any comments appreciated.

[ZillaK]

@ uneverdid - what company name is the court claim under - SPML or Preferred?

 

..but you're perhaps right about the cash grab angle re: their future.. it would appear that they'll do almost anything to get more money out of people..

 

..and loads of charges on the arrears is a fairly common approach for this lot.. get a complaint into the FOS if you haven't done so already

[ryde]

On another note they have taken up their option to restore my case to court following one missed payment in a year. However they have been very accommodating and have said if i make 2 normal monthly payments plus £50 they will cancel the new hearing. This has baffled me as they are normally unhelpful and downright nasty.qoute uneverdid

 

They've said this as they know they wouldn't win and the £50 would be court costs so if you've got it I'd pay it to avoid further aggro.

re other questions.sppl is part of the same lehmans group and just another lender,nothing to do specifically with you.

As long as you've got receipts for payment the account it goes into is really not that relevant,it is interesting however that the preferred account is closed and everything is being channelled into spml accounts.

A sure sign that preferred are dormant and not trading.

re arrears the right course is as suggested by zill above get a complaint in to fos if they wont answer your questions.(they have 40 days I think)

Edited February 18, 2010 by ryde