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

[freedomofspeech]

I see its just me and martdj online at the moment Hey martdj any luck with the mods letting you post again?

[rocket1]

I don' know if anyone is interested or if this will help anyone, I hope so. But here is my draft statement of case attached to my N244 application for stay of eviction.

 

10

 

Evidence in Support of Application Notice N244

 

During the whole of 2009 I was becoming increasingly ill with extreme stress, clinically diagnosed by my GP who referred me to a consultant psychiatrist for appropriate treatment. A principal feature of untreated extreme clinical stress is increasingly inability to function in any meaningful way.

 

This meant that although I believed I was able to process my considerable amount of paperwork and bring my mortgage issues under control to the satisfaction of the lender so that no eviction would take place; it was impossible owing to my increasing illness. This state of illness also included physical exhaustion on quite an extreme scale as a result of failed abdominal surgery three years ago to deal with a pre-cancerous condition of my oesophagus.

 

Medication designed to reduce signal traffic between synapses and therefore mechanically reduce the process of stress has resulted in me now returning to a normal state of function and able to process paperwork previously unable to be dealt with.

 

If this had take place timeously in the normal course of events more than a year ago, no repossession proceedings would have been brought in the first place. And when they were brought, the fact I was accepted for inclusion in the government backed ‘Mortgage Rescue Scheme’ would have ( as it did for a time) have stopped the lender proceeding with repossession leading to eviction.

 

I am in receipt of pension credit benefit as a lone parent bringing up a child alone and unaided and was and am also legally entitled to receipt of mortgage interest relief which would pay the current monthly mortgage payments in full. This application has been part processed and my state of illness has prevented me from progressing it further to its conclusion.

 

I contracted a very severe kidney infection/ and or influenza (my doctor thinks possibly both) on February 19th which resulted in me being entirely incapacitated and bedridden with a high temperature for about seven days and part incapacitated for a further seven days, making a total of fourteen days of virtually total incompetence during which time I was unaware of any eviction notice until Tuesday March 2nd.

 

This temporary illness was so severe my doctor was obliged to visit me at home, during which time he advised that I be taken to hospital as my condition was so severe as to warrant hospitalisation. I was obliged to decline as there was no one else to look after my eleven year old son.

 

My son is also now ill and cannot attend school which means that whilst I am now recovering adequately enough from my recent illness, much of my time is taken up with attending to the needs of a very ill eleven year old boy.

 

This inevitably has to take precedence over anything else, thus further making it difficult to timeously deal with an eviction date that is so close as to exclude any possibility of dealing with it in the short time allotted before the eviction date of March 15th.

 

It is the case that I have been a victim of the mis-selling in the sub-prime mortgage market since 1999 owing to my desperate attempts to survive and keep a roof over the heads of three children and my increasingly mentally ill partner and mother of my son who began to suffer from schizophrenia when our son was born eleven years ago.

 

Her illness, as is typically the case, destroyed every aspect of normal life, employment, income etc, and made me an easy victim of unscrupulous lenders and brokers in the sub-prime mortgage industry.

I have now initiated a formal complaint (number 9320194) concerning my existing mortgage lender, SPML, with the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning the mis-selling of my current mortgage with lender SPML.

 

A number of issues arise, the most relevant may perhaps be the simple fact that both the lender (SPML) and the broker ( a subsidiary of Capital One) were both expressly repeatedly informed by me that I was currently unemployed, a lone parent on State benefits, re-mortgaging only because I was being re-possessed by previous lender Birmingham Midshires, whose broker had informed me he ‘ specialised in getting mortgages for people with no employment who were on State Benefits’.

 

I will, in due course , also be formally lodging a complaint about the mis-selling of this mortgage.

 

In total, I have been milked of about £700 000 of equity over a ten year period, owing to the activities of mortgage lenders who all appear to pursue the same agenda of using the process of ‘conversion’ to illegally deprive property owners of their equity.

 

With all this in mind I would respectfully request the court to suspend the warrant of eviction to allow me the necessary time to progress the mortgage rescue scheme application and also the monthly interest payments which, combined, will provide no valid reason for eviction and will take the mortgage away from a lender who is a subsidiary of Lehmans Bros, notorious for financial malpractices, currently winding down its business in the full and certain knowledge that it is insolvent and, I am led to believe, treading illegally and without authority to repossess any property on which it originally initiated mortgages on.

 

Curiously, the SPML annual report ending November 2008 states that SPML mortgages have been bundled into separate subsidiary companies described by SPML as ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ which, in turn, are wholly owned by charitable trusts.

 

As the Charity Commission instructs me that charities or charitable trusts have to have a clear public benefit and ‘charitable purpose’ it would appear, on the face of this information, that SPML are engaged in criminal activity and have no legal entitlement to use my mortgage loan for this purpose as it represents a process of ‘conversion’ of my equity which is illegal by both virtue of comprising the act of ‘ conversion’ and also by virtue of being a criminal act under the legislation concerning charities and charitable trusts.

And that they (SPML) have no jurisdiction over my mortgage as it has been sold without my knowledge or consent with the sole intention and expectation that the said mortgage would be terminated for the benefit of investors within approximately two years instead of the full term; and that SPML have no legal right to seek repossession, not least because of various legislation, which I need time time to collate and cannot include in this summary attached to my application for stay of eviction.

 

I therefore seek an order of the court that:

 

- eviction be stayed pending the outcome of the financial Ombudsman enquiry.

- and eviction be stayed in any case to allow me time to properly assemble my case and collate the necessary evidence and obtain proper legal representation to be properly able to obtain justice in a matter which has been so far markedly unjust.

- and eviction be further stayed in any event to allow me time to complete the Government ‘mortgage rescue scheme’ which will entirely remove my mortgage from a rapacious and unprincipled lender, operating on the fringes of the law in order to unlawfully ‘convert’ the equity of borrowers to their own wrongful ownership in defiance of financial regulations as robustly described by the Treasury Select Committee reporting in late 2009.

 

- and that eviction be stayed until such time as the temporary illness of my son and myself is removed as eviction at this time is highly likely to result in pneumonia in either my son or myself as influenza is well known to be a dangerous killer - particularly of the young - as secondary infections such as pneumonia commonly take hold and kill victims of influenza and that currently, any trivial physical activity (as advised by the doctor) by either my son or myself ensures an instant further relapse of this illness, thus guaranteeing that the process of eviction will make this illness worse and potentially unnecessarily endanger the health of either my son or myself.

 

- and that eviction be further stayed because there has been no opportunity whatever in the time since I became aware of the notice of eviction in just five days time for me to do anything at all about providing alternative accommodation for my ill son or to even register with my local council as putatively homeless and in urgent need of bed and breakfast accommodation by the council.

 

- and eviction be further stayed on the grounds that two recent telephone calls between the Lender SPML and me which I have recorded on tape, and which I can supply a transcript of, clearly indicate the lender is in breach of its legally defined fiduciary duty as described by legislation, by virtue of insisting on repossession and eviction with complete disregard as to other more appropriate solutions, and that the lender is unnecessarily pursuing eviction when alternative solutions exist. This is in clear breach of financial regulations.

[rocket1]

Another post arbitarily trashed. It was my statement of case, so why removed ?

 

Something very fishy going on.

[ryde]

Ok then Ryde. Perhaps you can help me out...what exactly is this thread about?

 

I'm not saying it hasn't been great, and that there aren't lots of really useful posts herein. There are. And therein lies my point. Who should and who shouldn't be posting on here?

 

BTM if you don't know why are you here? You have hardly posted on this site yet you offer criticism of it.This is one of your previous posts:

---------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by enoughisenough

Just for you Crapstone...:grin:

 

FSA bans broker for high pressure sales techniques and widespread systems and controls failings

 

And anyone else who ended with these muppets via a dodgy broker.

 

-----------------------------------------------

...not just dodgy brokers, dodgy borrowers too! :grin: quote bustthematrix

 

Come on admit, folk usually end up with dodgy lenders 'cos they don't have much choice in the first place! quote bustthematrix

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am personally here for the following reasons:

1) Building a shared knowledge base to help fellow caggers both existing and new to the site with these particular lenders facing litigation and losing their home.

Score this month caggers 3 capstone crew 0

2) Exploring issues as to the legality of the lenders claims both evolving and past and the evolving legality of these particular securitisations.

 

This is an open forum anyone can post here,if its relevant it gets an answer if it isn't, it doesn't.

Most of us I'm sure, feel we're a community here facing a common adversary and like to let off a bit of steam and have a joke now and again which does no one any harm,but there's always a serious undercurrent here.

You would have to see a highly specialised barrister to get answers/opinions to some of the issues debated here which is probably well beyond everyone's means.

I hope that answers your questions.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

Another post arbitarily trashed. It was my statement of case, so why removed ?

 

Something very fishy going on.

 

got it by email will have a look.

[ryde]

my "edited" version of rockets post.

note reference to any particular party removed,post cannot be deemed in any way therefore libellous.

 

 

 

 

I was becoming increasingly ill with extreme stress during the whole period of 2009, which was clinically diagnosed by my GP who referred me to a consultant psychiatrist for appropriate treatment. A principal feature of untreated extreme clinical stress is increasingly inability to function in any meaningful way.

 

This meant that although I believed I was able to process my considerable amount of paperwork and bring my mortgage issues under control to the satisfaction of the lender so that no eviction would take place; it was impossible owing to my increasing illness. This state of illness also included physical exhaustion on quite an extreme scale as a result of failed abdominal surgery three years ago to deal with a pre-cancerous condition of my oesophagus.

 

Medication designed to reduce signal traffic between synapses and therefore mechanically reduce the process of stress has resulted in me now returning to a normal state of function and able to process paperwork previously unable to be dealt with.

 

If this had take place timeously in the normal course of events more than a year ago, no repossession proceedings would have been brought in the first place. And when they were brought, the fact I was accepted for inclusion in the government backed ‘Mortgage Rescue Scheme’ would have ( as it did for a time) have stopped the lender proceeding with repossession leading to eviction.

 

I am in receipt of pension credit benefit as a lone parent bringing up a child alone and unaided and was and am also legally entitled to receipt of mortgage interest relief which would pay the current monthly mortgage payments in full. This application has been part processed and my state of illness has prevented me from progressing it further to its conclusion.

 

I contracted a very severe kidney infection/ and or influenza (my doctor thinks possibly both) on February 19th which resulted in me being entirely incapacitated and bedridden with a high temperature for about seven days and part incapacitated for a further seven days, making a total of fourteen days of virtually total incompetence during which time I was unaware of any eviction notice until Tuesday March 2nd.

 

This temporary illness was so severe my doctor was obliged to visit me at home, during which time he advised that I be taken to hospital as my condition was so severe as to warrant hospitalisation. I was obliged to decline as there was no one else to look after my eleven year old son.

 

My son is also now ill and cannot attend school which means that whilst I am now recovering adequately enough from my recent illness, much of my time is taken up with attending to the needs of a very ill eleven year old boy.

 

This inevitably has to take precedence over anything else, thus further making it difficult to timeously deal with an eviction date that is so close as to exclude any possibility of dealing with it in the short time allotted before the eviction date of March 15th.

 

It is the case that I have been a victim of the mis-selling in the sub-prime mortgage market since 1999 owing to my desperate attempts to survive and keep a roof over the heads of three children and my increasingly mentally ill partner and mother of my son who began to suffer from schizophrenia when our son was born eleven years ago.

 

Her illness, as is typically the case, destroyed every aspect of normal life, employment, income etc, and made me an easy victim of unscrupulous lenders and brokers in the sub-prime mortgage industry.

I have now initiated a formal complaint concerning my existing mortgage lender, with the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning the mis-selling of my current mortgage with this lender.

 

A number of issues arise, the most relevant may perhaps be the simple fact that both the lender and the broker were both expressly repeatedly informed by me that I was currently unemployed, a lone parent on State benefits, re-mortgaging only because I was being re-possessed by previous lender, whose broker had informed me he ‘ specialised in getting mortgages for people with no employment who were on State Benefits’.

 

I will, in due course , also be formally lodging a complaint about the mis-selling of this mortgage.

 

 

 

With all this in mind I would respectfully request the court to suspend the warrant of eviction to allow me the necessary time to progress the mortgage rescue scheme application and also the monthly interest payments which, combined, will provide no valid reason for eviction.

 

 

I therefore seek an order of the court that:

 

- eviction be stayed pending the outcome of the financial Ombudsman enquiry.

- and eviction be stayed in any case to allow me time to properly assemble my case and collate the necessary evidence and obtain proper legal representation to be properly able to obtain justice in a matter which has been so far markedly unjust.

- and eviction be further stayed in any event to allow me time to complete the Government ‘mortgage rescue scheme’ which will entirely remove my mortgage from a rapacious and unprincipled lender, operating on the fringes of the law in order to unlawfully ‘convert’ the equity of borrowers to their own wrongful ownership in defiance of financial regulations as robustly described by the Treasury Select Committee reporting in late 2009.

 

- and that eviction be stayed until such time as the temporary illness of my son and myself is removed as eviction at this time is highly likely to result in pneumonia in either my son or myself as influenza is well known to be a dangerous killer - particularly of the young - as secondary infections such as pneumonia commonly take hold and kill victims of influenza and that currently, any trivial physical activity (as advised by the doctor) by either my son or myself ensures an instant further relapse of this illness, thus guaranteeing that the process of eviction will make this illness worse and potentially unnecessarily endanger the health of either my son or myself.

 

- and that eviction be further stayed because there has been no opportunity whatever in the time since I became aware of the notice of eviction in just five days time for me to do anything at all about providing alternative accommodation for my ill son or to even register with my local council as putatively homeless and in urgent need of bed and breakfast accommodation by the council.

 

- and eviction be further stayed on the grounds that two recent telephone calls between the Lender and me which I have recorded on tape, and which I can supply a transcript of, clearly indicate the lender is in breach of its legally defined fiduciary duty as described by legislation, by virtue of insisting on repossession and eviction with complete disregard as to other more appropriate solutions, and that the lender is unnecessarily pursuing eviction when alternative solutions exist. This is in clear breach of financial regulations.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Hi

It seems my posts go un-noticed I have contacted the FSA and e-mailed Vince Cable about the FSA not completing their investigations as promised. Am awaiting replies.

 

They are dragging it out far too long. They have been told....

[Crapstone]

Ryde..You could have at least deleted the ref. numbers. If a post is pulled it's probably with good reason...and up to the poster to come back with their own 'version' without your editing.

 

Sorry to have a bit of a moan but I wouldn't be too happy if you did that to me, however it was meant.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Crapstone

[ryde]

This is near enough the original post.This is merely a comparitive and educational exercise only in what is apparently allowable and what is not and is not in any way necessarily a view shared by others.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE SITE TEAM WOULD COMMENT FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES ON WHAT EXACTLY IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS EXTRACT TO PREVENT REOCCURENCE,PERHAPS THE APPARENTLY INAPPROPRIATE TEXT COULD BE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

 

COMMENTS?

 

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

 

I was becoming increasingly ill with extreme stress during the whole period of 2009, clinically diagnosed by my GP who referred me to a consultant psychiatrist for appropriate treatment. A principal feature of untreated extreme clinical stress is increasingly inability to function in any meaningful way.

 

This meant that although I believed I was able to process my considerable amount of paperwork and bring my mortgage issues under control to the satisfaction of the lender so that no eviction would take place; it was impossible owing to my increasing illness. This state of illness also included physical exhaustion on quite an extreme scale as a result of failed abdominal surgery three years ago to deal with a pre-cancerous condition of my oesophagus.

 

Medication designed to reduce signal traffic between synapses and therefore mechanically reduce the process of stress has resulted in me now returning to a normal state of function and able to process paperwork previously unable to be dealt with.

 

If this had take place timeously in the normal course of events more than a year ago, no repossession proceedings would have been brought in the first place. And when they were brought, the fact I was accepted for inclusion in the government backed ‘Mortgage Rescue Scheme’ would have ( as it did for a time) have stopped the lender proceeding with repossession leading to eviction.

 

I am in receipt of pension credit benefit as a lone parent bringing up a child alone and unaided and was and am also legally entitled to receipt of mortgage interest relief which would pay the current monthly mortgage payments in full. This application has been part processed and my state of illness has prevented me from progressing it further to its conclusion.

 

I contracted a very severe kidney infection/ and or influenza (my doctor thinks possibly both) on February 19th which resulted in me being entirely incapacitated and bedridden with a high temperature for about seven days and part incapacitated for a further seven days, making a total of fourteen days of virtually total incompetence during which time I was unaware of any eviction notice until Tuesday March 2nd.

 

This temporary illness was so severe my doctor was obliged to visit me at home, during which time he advised that I be taken to hospital as my condition was so severe as to warrant hospitalisation. I was obliged to decline as there was no one else to look after my eleven year old son.

 

My son is also now ill and cannot attend school which means that whilst I am now recovering adequately enough from my recent illness, much of my time is taken up with attending to the needs of a very ill eleven year old boy.

 

This inevitably has to take precedence over anything else, thus further making it difficult to timeously deal with an eviction date that is so close as to exclude any possibility of dealing with it in the short time allotted before the eviction date of March 15th.

 

It is the case that I have been a victim of the mis-selling in the sub-prime mortgage market since 1999 owing to my desperate attempts to survive and keep a roof over the heads of three children and my increasingly mentally ill partner and mother of my son who began to suffer from schizophrenia when our son was born eleven years ago.

 

Her illness, as is typically the case, destroyed every aspect of normal life, employment, income etc, and made me an easy victim of unscrupulous lenders and brokers in the sub-prime mortgage industry.

I have now initiated a formal complaint concerning my existing mortgage lender, SPML, with the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning the mis-selling of my current mortgage with lender SPML.

 

A number of issues arise, the most relevant may perhaps be the simple fact that both the lender (SPML) and the broker ( a subsidiary of Capital One) were both expressly repeatedly informed by me that I was currently unemployed, a lone parent on State benefits, re-mortgaging only because I was being re-possessed by previous lender Birmingham Midshires, whose broker had informed me he ‘ specialised in getting mortgages for people with no employment who were on State Benefits’.

 

I will, in due course , also be formally lodging a complaint about the mis-selling of this mortgage.

 

In total, I have been milked of about £700 000 of equity over a ten year period, owing to the activities of mortgage lenders who all appear to pursue the same agenda of using the process of ‘conversion’ to illegally deprive property owners of their equity.

 

With all this in mind I would respectfully request the court to suspend the warrant of eviction to allow me the necessary time to progress the mortgage rescue scheme application and also the monthly interest payments which, combined, will provide no valid reason for eviction and will take the mortgage away from a lender who is a subsidiary of Lehmans Bros, notorious for financial malpractices, currently winding down its business in the full and certain knowledge that it is insolvent and, I am led to believe, treading illegally and without authority to repossess any property on which it originally initiated mortgages on.

 

Curiously, the SPML annual report ending November 2008 states that SPML mortgages have been bundled into separate subsidiary companies described by SPML as ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ which, in turn, are wholly owned by charitable trusts.

 

As the Charity Commission instructs me that charities or charitable trusts have to have a clear public benefit and ‘charitable purpose’ it would appear, on the face of this information, that SPML are engaged in criminal activity and have no legal entitlement to use my mortgage loan for this purpose as it represents a process of ‘conversion’ of my equity which is illegal by both virtue of comprising the act of ‘ conversion’ and also by virtue of being a criminal act under the legislation concerning charities and charitable trusts.

And that they (SPML) have no jurisdiction over my mortgage as it has been sold without my knowledge or consent with the sole intention and expectation that the said mortgage would be terminated for the benefit of investors within approximately two years instead of the full term; and that SPML have no legal right to seek repossession, not least because of various legislation, which I need time time to collate and cannot include in this summary attached to my application for stay of eviction.

 

I therefore seek an order of the court that:

 

- eviction be stayed pending the outcome of the financial Ombudsman enquiry.

- and eviction be stayed in any case to allow me time to properly assemble my case and collate the necessary evidence and obtain proper legal representation to be properly able to obtain justice in a matter which has been so far markedly unjust.

- and eviction be further stayed in any event to allow me time to complete the Government ‘mortgage rescue scheme’ which will entirely remove my mortgage from a rapacious and unprincipled lender, operating on the fringes of the law in order to unlawfully ‘convert’ the equity of borrowers to their own wrongful ownership in defiance of financial regulations as robustly described by the Treasury Select Committee reporting in late 2009.

 

- and that eviction be stayed until such time as the temporary illness of my son and myself is removed as eviction at this time is highly likely to result in pneumonia in either my son or myself as influenza is well known to be a dangerous killer - particularly of the young - as secondary infections such as pneumonia commonly take hold and kill victims of influenza and that currently, any trivial physical activity (as advised by the doctor) by either my son or myself ensures an instant further relapse of this illness, thus guaranteeing that the process of eviction will make this illness worse and potentially unnecessarily endanger the health of either my son or myself.

 

- and that eviction be further stayed because there has been no opportunity whatever in the time since I became aware of the notice of eviction in just five days time for me to do anything at all about providing alternative accommodation for my ill son or to even register with my local council as putatively homeless and in urgent need of bed and breakfast accommodation by the council.

 

- and eviction be further stayed on the grounds that two recent telephone calls between the Lender SPML and me which I have recorded on tape, and which I can supply a transcript of, clearly indicate the lender is in breach of its legally defined fiduciary duty as described by legislation, by virtue of insisting on repossession and eviction with complete disregard as to other more appropriate solutions, and that the lender is unnecessarily pursuing eviction when alternative solutions exist. This is in clear breach of financial regulations.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

crapstone

have deleted original ref nos as suggested.This was however the original text as posted by rocket which was deleted without reason given, obviously to rockets grave concern her case being in the very near future and for which she is eliciting our assistance.

More than one post has been deleted recently which would have previously been left on.

Despite requests to the site team for reasons as to this no replies have been received as yet, please see rockets other thread.

The dual post is simply to discover what is and what is not acceptable to the site team, as the goalposts now appear to have been moved due to recent events, and will hopefully get their full response which will then help and prevent caggers from posting long posts only to see them immediately deleted with no explanation being given,..

Edited March 10, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Crapstone you won't have seen the other post by rocket1 but you may (or may not have) email notification of it. If you do I strongly advise you to read it as it is quite a distinctive post. The first half makes detailed reference to the FOS and how to complain which I would have thought would be right up your street. The second half concern's rocket1's case. I can see nothing in the least bit inflammatory, inappropriate or potentially libellous in it and the only conclusion I can draw is that the site team have come under pressure.

 

The pressure is not to remove that for which the cag could have it's ass sued. (That would be fair enough)

 

The pressure seems to be to remove posts that give the consumer a fighting chance against the JAWs, ie by spelling out the procedures for how to complain to the ombudsman.

 

If you posted some advice to a new cagger on how to issue a SAR and the site team pulled without notification or reason, the effect being that your advice never existed, how would you feel?

 

For anyone not in the loop Rocket is due out on his/her ass on Monday. And the site team pulls his posts. How do like them apples? And where are the bloody rotarians when you need 'em? ANW?

[rocket1]

ryde, Crapstone, Enoughisenough,

 

Thanks for returning me to sanity with your posts above.

 

It is appalling the site team cannot be bothered to at least inform why posts are pulled. I just could not work out why they were pulled because I know there was no possibility of libel, but even if CAG disagreed, just telling me would have been the right thing to do so at least I would have known how to proceed.

 

I think it is completely shocking that posts seem to be pulled just because they mention the name of a lender. That is not libel and it is definitely not actionable in any way !!

 

And having just to guess the problem is just mentioning a name is just plain childish and silly.

 

Is this post now going to pulled too because some small minded person dislikes my tone ?

 

 

ryde, in reply to one of your recent posts I have contacted Ell-enn and she said (slightly tartly) that my statement in support of anti eviction application was too long. Here is her comment and my reply.

 

What do you think about my reply to her and what do you think about the length of my statement in support of anti eviction application copied below ?

 

(from Ell-enn)

 

Hi there, I'm afraid that's far too long - the judge will never read half of it. A witness statement in support of the N244 application has to be concise and to the point. Judges aren't interested in detailed accounts and it can often irritate them. All they are interested in at the end of the day is if there is a possibility of you making payments towards the arrears - legally, that's all they have to consider.

 

What you will need is documentary proof that your application for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme is being processed and also a copy of any letters regarding your complaint from the FOS.

 

Have you looked at some of the other statements I've posted for people on the Repossession forum.

 

If you need help with the statement let me know.

 

 

(from Rocket)

 

Hi Ell-enn,

 

Your pm when I opened it was entirely blank but when I clicked on reply to tell you that I saw the copy you wrote. Obviously the CAG software is having some kind of nervous breakdown at present !

 

Thanks for the advice, which I take on board but don't quite understand for this reason.

 

I have no documentary proof of the mortgage rescue scheme in progress as it was suspended owing to my illness. I have made a telephone call to the man in the rescue scheme organisation based in Birmingham who was dealing with my application but his voice mail tells me he is away until Monday March 15th. Although there is also a message telling me to telephone another number of the 'emergency response team' for urgent help, they do not answer directly, only requesting me to leave a message - which I have done three times now with no response back from them at all.

 

I am also still waiting for documents from the Ombudsman, but as that investigation has only just been opened those documents will not yet have any meaning, other than to give that FOS investigation number which I have already quoted.

 

So owing to this slow response of bureaucracy I will have to go into court with no documentary back up evidence of any kind. But, surely my verbal evidence does have relevance and cannot just be completely ignored in the absence of documentary evidence.

 

It cannot be the case that a court assumes everything a litigant says is a lie unless it is 'backed up' by documentary evidence. Any normal person - including Judges - recognise the impossibility of getting a case completely together in an impossibly short time, when everyone knows bureaucracies move very, very slowly indeed.

 

That is precisely why I ask in my statement for the case to be stayed to give me time to actually get the case together properly and then to return to the court at a later date to resume the hearing.

 

 

 

I accept you may be right and I know you are far more experienced than me and so I do accept you advice which I have also heard elsewhere. But I still cannot understand what is going on with these cases and I try explaining below what I mean.

 

Meanwhile, I will edit down my statement and have a look at your other examples of statements.

 

It is also the case that I have seen advice from some official body elsewhere that complains that county courts should be looking at these arguments I am putting forward and not simply confining themselves to 'can the borrower just pay up or not, that is the only thing the court is interested in'.

 

Obviously you can ask a court to stop an eviction if you can pay current payments and make reasonable payments towards arrears. It would clearly be madness for any court not to order that as OK.

 

But somewhere in that everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that no lender should ever bring that kind of case to court because if lenders were 'normal' people, they would agree with borrowers to such arrangements without ever needing to go to court.

 

In other words, if courts are only interested in stopping eviction on these grounds only, it seems quite silly - a parody of the purpose of a court if you see what I mean.

 

I thought courts were there to decide complex arguments of disagreement between parties. Typically of many borrowers, in my case, I have no access to payments towards arrears at present, only a reasonable opportunity in the future.

 

Meanwhile the State would pay the normal current monthly payments but not the vast 'penalty' charges which a borrower should be entitled to plead to the court to make a ruling that they may be part of an 'unfair' and possibly illegal contract which actually breaks the law.

 

While this court cannot rule on it, a borrower should be able to plead for suspension of eviction (a court ruling on 'directions' in the case) while that case is brought before another court to be heard, as clearly such a matter has legitimacy; and if found to be true, then it follows the borrower may be liable to receive compensation perhaps, from the lender and not be in a position to be wrongly evicted, thus incurring further losses as a result of the wrong doing of the lender.

 

In other words the borrower is before the court facing eviction as a direct result of the wrong doing of the lender and the borrower has to plead that to the court for a stay of eviction as the only remedy to borrowers who have been deliberately put in that position and kept there with wrongful contracts and penalty charges by lenders.

 

Otherwise what on earth is the point of going to court when you can pay your mortgage anyway ? Even my lender is telling me they will not evict if I pay the monthly payments and pay the arrears. So this makes a whole great nonsense of going to court unless it is to make the sort of pleadings that I outlined in my statement as those pleadings are the only thing to argue before the court.

 

This mechanism I am arguing is clearly illustrated in those cases where courts have previously ruled repossession or eviction be suspended pending the result of an ombudsman investigation.

 

I am proposing to also plead exactly that, but with the addition of many other points which do make a lengthy 1500 word statement.

 

While it is quite true this takes three times longer to read than a standard 500 word statement, it does actually only take about five to ten minutes - the average length of a newspaper feature article , and it is an unavoidable and principal part of any Judge's job to read such documents.

 

It seems petulant and ridiculous for Judges to complain they are irritated because they haven't got time to read what appears to me to be a completely legitimate and vital statement written in a very concise manner.

 

It also needs to be pointed out that it is the most relevant and important of any document in any case, without which there would be no case at all making every other document in any case irrelevant.

 

As it is well known that all cases produce vast piles of documents for Judges and everyone else to refer to, it seems quite perverse to try and avoid the most important document of all in any case and thus be prevented from making a legitimately pleaded case at all.

 

How can these cases be only about 'can you pay now' when they are actually brought into being as a wrongdoing or 'tort' of the lender against the borrower.

 

Once again, many thanks for your help, I am grateful.

 

Nick/Rocket

[enoughisenough]

Rocket yes absolutely...in a fair world with a helluva lot at stake...but Ell-en is right. At least try to meet her half way...and organise your defence in a step wise fashion...something like this...

 

Challenge level of arrears

 

1. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (SI2083) 1999. amounts claimed falsely stated. Court to exercise its discretion in accordance with 12.3 and make injunction against those charges. Claimant not to be granted eviction until arrears figures properly and accurately stated

 

2. DSS/DWP: Have not paid interest for one year. Still in pursuit of why this is. (Get something to show the judge)

 

Provide budget

 

3. The claimant’s locus standi.

 

4. The claimant’s conduct. Not last resort CJC pre-action protocols.On going FOS Inquiry. Ongoing FSA Inquiry. GMAC-RFC.

 

Court should not sanction this until these matters resolved by the regulatory authorities.

 

5. The defendant’s circumstances and medical condition (Doctor Evidence)

 

6. Concluding statement. Will be able to maintain payments towards genuine arrears going forward once the issue of charges and consumer mistreatment has been assessed and DWP issue is resolved. FSA criticised GMAC for mistreatment of some who had been repossessed. Courts should apply forbearance where the lender does not.

 

Please please please. THis might work for you if you can get it together. Meet Ell-en as closely as you can +the other stuff and we might just hold them off.

 

KTF EiE. (No Cagger left behind...not lost one yet...fingers crossed xx.)

Edited March 10, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Instead of complaining to the useless FSA we should be complaining aboutthe useless FSA to the complaints commissioner Sir Anthony Holland.

 

Complaints about the FSA

[rocket1]

EIE,Thanks.

 

A couple of clarifications needed.

 

I presume you mean para 12.3 of S12083 1999 ?

 

I have difficulty with concept of budget. What meaning does this have when it is £106 pw hand to mouth petty expenditure surviving. Most relevant/important things ie council tax etc are outside this cash income. It seems a budget is something quite meaningless in this instance ? BUT if people want to see it, of course I can produce something that will just a waste of time and complete fiction.

 

I am unsure what you mean by locus standi. I do know what that means, but do you mean the lender has no right to re-possess etc as mentioned in my own statement because mortgage sold on etc.

 

Claimants conduct is everything I rabbitted on about in my long statement. What do you suggest I put here as a shortened version ? I don't know what CJC means.

[enoughisenough]

EIE,Thanks.

 

A couple of clarifications needed.

 

I presume you mean para 12.3 of S12083 1999 ?

 

I have difficulty with concept of budget. What meaning does this have when it is £106 pw hand to mouth petty expenditure surviving. Most relevant/important things ie council tax etc are outside this cash income. It seems a budget is something quite meaningless in this instance ? BUT if people want to see it, of course I can produce something that will just a waste of time and complete fiction.

 

I am unsure what you mean by locus standi. I do know what that means, but do you mean the lender has no right to re-possess etc as mentioned in my own statement because mortgage sold on etc.

 

Claimants conduct is everything I rabbitted on about in my long statement. What do you suggest I put here as a shortened version ? I don't know what CJC means.

 

12.3 Yes Correct

 

Budget - a basic requirement sunk without it. Judge will think you are not taking it seriously and off you go (harsh but true). At least try to get something together that shows something left over.

 

oooh and I forget Norgan Case Law Allows the arrears to be spread over the remainder of the term

 

Here it is:

 

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Christina Norgan

Court of Appeal 5 December 1995

 

Arrears on an agreement can be repaid over the full period of that agreement, a court not being obliged to set a shorter period.

 

Mrs Norgan had title to the family home in Wiltshire, and mortgaged it with the Guardian Building Society (since absorbed into the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society). By 1990, she had fallen into arrears of £7,216, which gave the building society the right to take possession of the property. The building society took her to the County Court where the judge made a possession order with arrears then at £14,744, but suspended it on the basis that Mrs Norgan was attempting to re finance the loan. No re-financing took place and further hearings took place over the next two years, with only a few payments made. By the end of 1992, arrears stood at £15,000. The Benefits Agency started making Mrs Norgan's interest payments from June 1992.

 

The building society then gained leave from the County Court to seek a warrant to execute the possession order, subject to Mrs Norgan's appeal to the judge. That appeal was not completed until May 1994, with the hearing taking into account mainly the dispute between the parties over the period over which the arrears should be repaid. The Administration of Justice Act 1973 provided that repayment should be allowed over a "reasonable period", and custom within the courts was to allow only around two to four years. In addition, reference was made to the guidelines of the Council of Mortgage Lenders (of which the society was a member), which recommend members to allow a reasonable period to sort out arrears. The judge rejected the defendant's case for allowing the remainder of the mortgage term for arrears to be cleared, and dismissed her appeal.

 

Mrs Norgan appealed from this decision, and it was held that, where it would be practicable for the arrears to be paid off over the remainder of the mortgage period, the Administration of Justice Acts required that this should be the basis for County Court decisions, and that previous lower court practice did not take account of the Acts' requirements.

 

 

S.36 Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

36

(1) Where the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling house brings an action in which he claims possession of the mortgaged property, not being an action for foreclosure in which a claim for possession of the mortgaged property is also made, the Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) below if it appears to the Court that in the event of its exercising the power the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage or to remedy a default consisting of a breach of any other obligation arising under or by virtue of the mortgage.

(2) [the court, if satisfied that there is a real likelihood that the mortgagor would be able within a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage: ]

(a) [to] adjourn the proceedings; or

(b) on giving judgment, or making an order, for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property, or at any time before the execution of such judgment or order, may-

(i) stay or suspend execution of the judgment or order, or

(ii) postpone the date for delivery of possession,

for such period or periods as the court thinks reasonable.

(3) Any such adjournment, stay, suspension or postponement as is referred to in subsection (ii) above may be made subject to such conditions with regard to payment by the mortgagor of any sum secured by the mortgage or the remedying of any default as the Court thinks fit.

 

 

Who was the originator? SPML/SPPL/Preferred? Locus standi. Don't rely too heavily courts not that interested. But where is their sols authorisation to act on behalf of the lender....bet they haven't got it...Instructions from lightfoots/optima or some other to a local sol, But who instructed them? Capstone that's who. Where is the letter that proves Capstone have right to collect payments and issue claim?

 

Claimants conduct take out all the medical stuff and Itemise a b c of where they have misbehaved Again succinct you can articulate if the judge bites.

 

CJC:

 

In October 2008 the Civil Justice Council published the pre-action protocol. These include the steps lenders must observe before they can bring a possession claim. There is a clear requirement for the lender to observe these protocols and ensure that any possession claim is an action of last resort. Needless to say many possession claims conducted by Capstone Mortgage Services are not claims of last resort or even anything remotely resembling a lost resort remedy.

 

http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/Mortgage_Pre-Action_protocol_21_Oct.pdf

 

Keep the Faith

[ryde]

Rocket

Having some experience of the county court I tend to agree with Ell-enn.I wrote a 5 page missive in my early days congratulating myself on what a brilliant piece of work it was,was in there for 10 mins ,the only questions of relevance,when can you pay and how much?

You really have to make this barebone ,leave out all the subprime **** bits and keep it solely to your own personal circumstances at this time now and your ability to service the mortgage.The object being solely to prevent your imminent eviction.Ell-enn and eie recognise this.

Your other arguments re misselling would thinking about it be part I think of a claim against the lender via a counterclaim or seperate action.Obviously I would stand corrected on this.

So we need to look at what you have concrete you can offer.

1)fos

2)mortgage rescue scheme,any documentary evidence here vital,you must get hold of them have they a fax or email address,keep persevering.

3)benefits

 

will all this be sufficient to service the mortgage?

Get Ell-enn to go through the n244 form and get it in asap,if you havent got docs available state they will follow.

Only 2 days to go after today.

[rocket1]

EIE many thanks,

 

I will take a breath now and re-work all this with your advice and Ell-enns.

 

I have no hope of getting it filed at the court today as hoped, so will have to try for first thing tomorrow.

 

Will let you and Ell-enn have a look at the reworked statement asap.thanks

[rocket1]

ryde, ditto,

 

Thanks will show you re-done statement later when done.

Edited March 10, 2010 by rocket1

[freedomofspeech]

Not only are we having to fight these thieving mortgage companies but it would appear that we are having to fight the site admin /Mods. there are strange goimgs on on the site without any explanation from the admin/mods and members are being barred from direct posting on this site. can somone please tell me what is going on

[ryde]

FOS

Think we'd all like to know, but nothing except the sound of silence.

Are we on autobot?

last week the site team were all over us.

By the way latest eurosail news,one of them and I expect there'll be more has issued a claim against lehmans for $200 million.(is that the shortfall.if it is they must be on the brink)

Edited March 11, 2010 by ryde

[IdaInFife]

there has been no recent posts pulled

 

the site had a few techincal problems yesterday/today with posts appearing on ALL threads

 

can you confirm how you contacted the site team for answers?

[enoughisenough]

Your cag history stands before you. But I have a question and then a one word answer. The question is simply this: I thought such matters were never discussed on open and the appeareance and disappearance of posts remains a mystery.

 

The second one word answer begins with B and ends in the consonant sound X.

 

I reiterate. Families Are being murdered out hereWhat kind of consumer ACTION group is this?

[ryde]

eie

I can confirm what idainfife has said on rockets other thread that the posts apparently pulled did in fact only show in the edit function,then when they were reposted they simply just would not post.Also the last few days it has taken an age to access the site.

Edited March 11, 2010 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Crapstone you won't have seen the other post by rocket1 but you may (or may not have) email notification of it. If you do I strongly advise you to read it as it is quite a distinctive post. The first half makes detailed reference to the FOS and how to complain which I would have thought would be right up your street. The second half concern's rocket1's case. I can see nothing in the least bit inflammatory, inappropriate or potentially libellous in it and the only conclusion I can draw is that the site team have come under pressure.

 

The pressure is not to remove that for which the cag could have it's ass sued. (That would be fair enough)

 

The pressure seems to be to remove posts that give the consumer a fighting chance against the JAWs, ie by spelling out the procedures for how to complain to the ombudsman.

 

If you posted some advice to a new cagger on how to issue a SAR and the site team pulled without notification or reason, the effect being that your advice never existed, how would you feel?

 

For anyone not in the loop Rocket is due out on his/her ass on Monday. And the site team pulls his posts. How do like them apples? And where are the bloody rotarians when you need 'em? ANW?

 

I think we all jumped the gun and read far more into a site error. I trust CAG and their judgement .... I didn't see the previous posts but they could have been pulled by the original poster or for other reasons that would be private. S*** happens, posts are pulled or lost in transit, people don't respond to your advice or ignore it ...and computer errors happen. Let's just get back to the job of keeping homes..