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

[supersleuth]

Judgments - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant)

v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

 

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

 

If it is not effective in law, it is an equitable assignment

 

Hi Suetonius,

 

Very interesting quote from the Mulkerrins case. Of course, the court recognised in Mulkerrins that the contracting parties had real freedom to contract, and that both parties had "equality of bargaining power".

 

However, in the context of standard form contracts, (often called 'adhesion' contracts because consumers are stuck with it - either take it or leave it contracts), the courts recognise that powerless parties such as consumers do not have 'freedom to contract' and do not have equality of bargaining power when it comes to contracting with powerful parties such as banks. Consequently, Parliament has attempted to redress the contractual imbalances in bargaining powers that render the powerless consumer subject to abusive and unfair contractual terms imposed by the powerful parties.

 

Thus, the general rule you cite from the Mulkerrins case is inapplicable to contracts between consumers and banks. The courts should apply e.g., the CCA protections and the UTCC Regs. The notion of Freedom to contract when contracting as a consumer is a pure fiction and, it is futile to suggest that a consumer has any equality of bargaining power when contracting with powerful banks. The plain and simple fact is: that consumers have no bargaining power and have no freedom to influence the terms of the contract.

 

Therefore, with reference to your emphasised red underlined text, in short: a consumer cannot take the precaution of including a prohibition against an assignment even if they wanted to because the contracts are standard form contracts. Standard form consumer contracts do not fall with the Mulkerrins 'general rule'. The court should determine whether the assignment clause was fair or unfair to the consumer and whether the assignment caused a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. See Article 5 of S.I. 1999/2083. Given that the FSA have already noted that the assignments and securitisations are unfair to consumers it should follow that the courts should find the assignments unfair.

 

Good to see you back again,

Supersleuth

Edited March 15, 2010 by supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

gosh...

 

Am I blessed to be here...

 

Now keep it civil...the pair of you.

 

Oh and by the way Super

 

This is right on the nail. The whole logic of consumer protections is thus.

 

A common law construction is ALWAYS built around freedom of contract, no shelter from a bad bargain, caveat emptor, tough titty etc.

 

However regulations and statute have sought progressively to correct this imbalance.

 

Otherwise what's the point of the overriding objective? It recognises inequality before the law and therefore tries to make some attempt to redress the balance. That's my take,,,and welcome back to the pair of you!

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius, one further observation to make on your comment that "If it is not effective in law, it is an equitable assignment"...

 

Actually, if a legal assignment is not effective in law, the the court of equity's principles and jurisdiction will operate on the assignee's legal assignment. Thus the court of equity would not construe a contract intending a legal assignment as an equitable assignment just because there was a failure of a s.136 notice. Equity would operate on the assignees legal assignment until such time that there has been a s.136 compliance. Equity's operation on an assignees legal title is entirely distinct and different from an equitable assignment.

 

We have a happy history of agreeing to disagree on this point, but thought I'd re-state the alternative view for the record.

 

Regards

Supersleuth

[Crapstone]

There seem to be lots of little snippets of potentially useful law mentioned on various posts but they just get lost in amongst the 5673 posts.

 

Someone else posted recently how it would be useful to look at the 'bullet points' of the various issues that might be brought to bear in any court case.

 

 

But, there are no 'bullet points' and nowhere are the really useful bits and pieces collated for people to look at and use and further verify etc.

 

If all these were collated, as individuals investigate them further, our knowledge of law relating to these SPML et al issues would rise exponentially and reach a point where any reader could look at our collection of law and just use it to win hands down in every case .

 

After all, we are complaining about not having access to a hot lawyer because we don't have the money, but, over time if we collected all the relevant law into one place we would have just as much knowledge as that hot, experienced lawyer (theoretically).

 

For example, it has sometimes crossed my mind in the past that there is a potential for a money making website whose function is to provide all that legal information that lawyers spend years learning about so they can charge extortionate fees to act for non lawyers who need lawyers to take cases to court - only because lawyers know the law and lay people don't.

 

 

If you had a website vaguely along the lines of Wikipedia, but confined to law, any reader could just look up things relevant to them ( like how to fight a sub-prime mortgage lender, for instance) and see all the bits and pieces of arguments that could be relevant to them for use in court.

 

That way, people would be able to completely bypass the need for relying on lawyers. All you are doing when employing a lawyer is employing that body of useful legal knowledge needed to deal with a case.

 

People may think this idea is fanciful, but I don't think so. Wikipedia has its critics, but it works well up to a point. So would a similar thing for law because at the end of the day law is really quite simple. It's all about a filing system to quote what Parliament and other regulatory bodies have put into a package of words that defines what must or must not be done.

 

If you know where to find it, you just connect it all in a logical argument that applies to your own case.

 

That is simply what any lawyer does.

 

In the days before computers it is what the successful and switched on litigant in person, initially ignorant of the law, would do themselves.

 

They would go to a library with the right law books, look up the law relating to their problem, understand the arguments needed and win.

 

Why can't we get a bit more organised and sort out all the body of useful knowledge we are acquiring and put it into some sort of vague order so it becomes more useable. It seems to me at the moment that it is far from useable without reading through 5700 posts at least.

 

There are all sorts of thing here which are just getting drowned in the thousands of posts.

 

I would imagine the best way to do this is to take the useful info away from a forum and onto another website where it could be filed and organised more easily.

 

If something like this is not done, it effectively means that an awful lot of effort made by people on this thread is simply wasted as it disappears into internet oblivion.

 

That's what I think !

 

What does anyone else think ?

 

Law doesn't stand still for long enough to make another website work and each case is down to a judge to decide, as all circumstances are very different. It can't be compared to Wiki! One error on their site means you lose a pub quiz, not your house or status.

 

There is no definitive solution, just a meeting of minds of what has and hasn't worked for them and looking for ways forward and to finally break the ice for all.

[Crapstone]

Thinking back on a comment made here about the cost of dialling 0845 numbers to contact CAPSTONE, this was attached to an email i recieved from them 3 days ago. It may be cheaper on us if this guy can redirect us to the appropriate department:)

 

Christopher Garrett

Customer Service Officer

Capstone Mortgage Services Ltd

A Lehman Brothers Company

1st Floor, St Johns Place,

Easton Street, High Wycombe,

Buckinghamshire, HP11 2NL

Direct Phone & Fax: 0207 532 9527

Switchboard: 0207 7532 9000

Web: http://capstonemortgageservices.co.uk

[email protected]

 

 

I am sure it is not meant to be his private number as he makes it public in Emails, so it cannot harm to use it.

Just a thought

 

We need to drop one of the 7's from the switch board number i.e. 0207 532 9000

 

Not a contact to be trusted by telephone so put everything in writing, FAX or email.

[Crapstone]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Very interesting quote from the Mulkerrins case. Of course, the court recognised in Mulkerrins that the contracting parties had real freedom to contract, and that both parties had "equality of bargaining power".

 

However, in the context of standard form contracts, (often called 'adhesion' contracts because consumers are stuck with it - either take it or leave it contracts), the courts recognise that powerless parties such as consumers do not have 'freedom to contract' and do not have equality of bargaining power when it comes to contracting with powerful parties such as banks. Consequently, Parliament has attempted to redress the contractual imbalances in bargaining powers that render the powerless consumer subject to abusive and unfair contractual terms imposed by the powerful parties.

 

Thus, the general rule you cite from the Mulkerrins case is inapplicable to contracts between consumers and banks. The courts should apply e.g., the CCA protections and the UTCC Regs. The notion of Freedom to contract when contracting as a consumer is a pure fiction and, it is futile to suggest that a consumer has any equality of bargaining power when contracting with powerful banks. The plain and simple fact is: that consumers have no bargaining power and have no freedom to influence the terms of the contract.

 

Therefore, with reference to your emphasised red underlined text, in short: a consumer cannot take the precaution of including a prohibition against an assignment even if they wanted to because the contracts are standard form contracts. Standard form consumer contracts do not fall with the Mulkerrins 'general rule'. The court should determine whether the assignment clause was fair or unfair to the consumer and whether the assignment caused a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. See Article 5 of S.I. 1999/2083. Given that the FSA have already noted that the assignments and securitisations are unfair to consumers it should follow that the courts should find the assignments unfair.

 

Good to see you back again,

Supersleuth

 

I'm with you on that SS. It should also follow that charges have been relied on as a source of revenue, part of the business plan and relied upon from the outset instead of covering reasonable costs. Deliberate and strategic from the outset..loans that were meant to fail regardless of the consumers ability to pay.

[ZillaK]

Osborne blasts FSA over collapse of Lehman Brothers | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

Accounting for Lehman, or Enron Pt 2 | Dan Roberts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

Auditors' role in Lehmans collapse unites opposition in calls for reform | Business | guardian.co.uk

[supersleuth]

Hi ZillaK

 

Thanks for posting the links. At last the accountants and the lawyers are rightly being exposed for their part in the fraud. It illustrates the depth of corruption and fraud in the City of London. When fees for lawyers and accountants run into millions, their greed takes precedence over professional integrity and they will happily sell their reputations for the cash. So the big law firms and the big accountants cannot be trusted - reality is that professional integrity and ethics are absent when there's millions of pounds cash for the taking.

 

Reference is made to the posts that discussed whether it was lawful for E&Y to give their SPML filed accountant's opinion on blank paper (as opposed to writing their opinion on letterheaded paper). If anyone still thinks the E&Y opinion on blank paper has any integrity or credibility they really do need their head tested. E&Y must know their fraudulent complicity in this [problem] was about to be exposed and consequently, they obviously want to avoid taking legal responsibility for those accounts. E&Y know that those accounts are pure fraud.

 

Linklaters are the first law firm to be exposed for their complicity in the great fraud, but if the press really do their job, the fraudulent and criminal conduct of the law firms has vastly more fraudulent conduct to expose.

Edited March 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

Super

I believe that E and Y were quite duplicitous and guarded in their opinions concerning the group we are involved in.Their comments as to each individual entity as going concerns can only be seen as adverse and certainly completely unattractive to any potential purchaser,I cannot see how this can be intepreted any other way..However when you take the group as a complete entity and see the inter company debt write offs that's the real crunch which the accountants for the whole group should clearly have known and have been aware of.A typical example being 55m purchase of shares in sppl by the parent and 100% shareholder resetfan,non payment and yet stated as a debit on their balance sheet and then the abandonment of sppl because directors have been deliberately not appointed and accounts have deliberately not been submitted since 2006 despite being submitted for other members of the group(except LMC, still remarkably active) .Also the next parent up in the structure Mable buying 25m in shares in their subsidiary 3 weeks before going into admin.Therefore 25m lost to their creditors whilst their subsidiary remains solvent and active.

re your post re the court of equity.

We have this little nugget to contend with.

(4.16 The proposed definition of managing a regulated mortgage contract is not intended to bring into the scope of regulation firms that own or hold a regulated mortgage contract but do not carry out any activity that is material to the borrower. Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and

other vehicles used in securitisation, for example, may own or hold regulated mortgage contracts but have no role in any decision-making process which affects borrowers. Decisionmaking powers are delegated by these bodies to a mortgage third party, for example the originating mortgage lender. The Government considers that arrangements of this type should be allowed to continue, and in such arrangements, authorisation will be required by the firm that has the ability to make decisions that will materially affect the borrower, and not by the firm that owns or holds the mortgage. In cases where the firm that owns or holds the mortgage instructs or directs the firm with the ability to make decisions to act in a certain way, this firm will require authorisation.)

 

So proof of direct decision making and instruction by the unauthorised spv is essential to contest this regulation.

The fact that the mortgage is securitised should not in theory affect the consumers rights or be detrimental to performance.

we all know this is a different story ,the problem being to get a precedental judgement from a higher court and proof of collusion between the third party adminstrator who is regulated and the spv who is not.

This would then render any agreement unenforceable.

Edited March 16, 2010 by ryde

[freedomofspeech]

I have received an answerphone message from E & Y, after I wanted to know who to complain to!. They said i should address any complaints to Scott Halliday1 More London PlaceLondonSE1 2AFPhone: +44 20 7951 2000Fax: +44 20 7951 1345I will be ringing this person tomorrow ( gotta go to work now!) to see what he has to say on the matter. Its funny that on their site under News there is no mention of their possible involvement in fraud! By the way Martdj informs me that his requests to be allowed full access are still being ignored despite his unreserved apologies. At a timewhen things are hotting up I feel he should be allowed back. Does anyone have a telephone number he could ring for CAg so he can discuss ?

[ZillaK]

@ EiE

 

re: LR.

 

I've attached a copy of the TR4 form used to batch register the titles. The key point is the date - 30 January 2009. And bear in mind the issue of notified legal assignment to SPPL considerably prior to that date.

 

@ Supersleuth - quite agree..

TR4SPPL-SPML 30-01-09.pdf

[ryde]

rocket

re your ealier post,all the info required for fighting claims etc is on this excellent site.

Kick ‘em when they’re down… Capstonewatch's Blog

 

sced

If you need any help with your battle,get in touch and we'll put it all together.

Edited March 16, 2010 by ryde

[supersleuth]

Super

I believe that E and Y were quite duplicitous and guarded in their opinions concerning the group we are involved in.Their comments as to each individual entity as going concerns can only be seen as adverse and certainly completely unattractive to any potential purchaser,I cannot see how this can be intepreted any other way..However when you take the group as a complete entity and see the inter company debt write offs that's the real crunch which the accountants for the whole group should clearly have known and have been aware of.A typical example being 55m purchase of shares in sppl by the parent and 100% shareholder resetfan,non payment and yet stated as a debit on their balance sheet and then the abandonment of sppl because directors have been deliberately not appointed and accounts have deliberately not been submitted since 2006 despite being submitted for other members of the group(except LMC, still remarkably active) .Also the next parent up in the structure Mable buying 25m in shares in their subsidiary 3 weeks before going into admin.Therefore 25m lost to their creditors whilst their subsidiary remains solvent and active.

re your post re the court of equity.

We have this little nugget to contend with.

(4.16 The proposed definition of managing a regulated mortgage contract is not intended to bring into the scope of regulation firms that own or hold a regulated mortgage contract but do not carry out any activity that is material to the borrower. Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and

other vehicles used in securitisation, for example, may own or hold regulated mortgage contracts but have no role in any decision-making process which affects borrowers. Decisionmaking powers are delegated by these bodies to a mortgage third party, for example the originating mortgage lender. The Government considers that arrangements of this type should be allowed to continue, and in such arrangements, authorisation will be required by the firm that has the ability to make decisions that will materially affect the borrower, and not by the firm that owns or holds the mortgage. In cases where the firm that owns or holds the mortgage instructs or directs the firm with the ability to make decisions to act in a certain way, this firm will require authorisation.)

 

So proof of direct decision making and instruction by the unauthorised spv is essential to contest this regulation.

The fact that the mortgage is securitised should not in theory affect the consumers rights or be detrimental to performance.

we all know this is a different story ,the problem being to get a precedental judgement from a higher court and proof of collusion between the third party adminstrator who is regulated and the spv who is not.

This would then render any agreement unenforceable.

 

Proof does exist. In the Administration agreements the Administrator is contractually bound to ensure that they set the interest rates at a level that will guarantee to meet all the SPVs required income including their required profits. In other words the Administrator does not set the interest rates in accordance with its contractual rights with the borrower, but sets the rates in accordance with its contractual obligation to the SPV. This is the reason why all borrowers are always charged more interest than they are contractually obligated to pay.

 

The Administrator will receive its administration fee from the SPV administration contract as a percentage of the aggregate outstanding debts (say at e.g. 1% of the total outstanding balances of the borrowers), but also it is often found that the SPV contracts permit the administrator to receive all the "administration" fees. Is it any wonder then that the administrator charges the borrower £115 per month? The fee is charged to the borrower allegedly pursuant to the borrowers contract but the administrator takes the fee pursuant to its contract with the SPV. At every turn, whether it be the SPV, the administrator or the originator, all of them have their finger in the big fraud pie to screw over the borrower. The borrower is the only source of ALL their obscene wealth begotton by fraud on the borrower.

 

The SPV are not passive in the exercise of their powers as the legal owner. They actively set the policies by which the SPVs charge the borrowers and they set the repossession policies and the administrator is contractually bound to the SPV to carry out the SPVs policies. It is well documented that the administrators deferred to their SPV administration contracts in preference to their FSA obligations. Hence all the SPVs should be regulated but they are not. So the SPVs hide from the regulators and escape regulation (for what its worth as the FSA is probably the greatest supporter of bank friendly policies anyway and no use to the consumers anyway).

 

Getting the proof....well its back to that disclosure issue...the courts will assist the banks in their concealment of these facts too. Can't you just her the BS of the lawyers using the magical words "paragon v pender"...it is used as the cure all abracadabra to eliminate every borrower defence irrespective of what the case actually does stand for. Never known of any other case be so grossly misquoted and abused by the lawyers as the the pender case is.

Edited March 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

Super

Hence the avoidance at all costs of the disclosure of the mortgage administration agreement etc by the claimants in any court proceedings.

Could the recent notices by the various involved spvs regarding the iminent insolvency of sppl, to the noteholders, instructing and directing the administrators capstone to transfer the legal charge to the spv also be seen as direct evidence of the spvs management and control of the consumers agreement?

 

Thinking about it how can sppl be iminently insolvent if resetfan owe them 55million?

So is this a fraud perpetrated by the parent of the originators onto the spv then onto the noteholder!!!!!!!!

The fraud being resetfan being 100% shareholders in sppl have failed to appoint directors or submit accounts ,have failed to pay 55m for shares deliberately abandoning the company without fulfilling its own obligations and writing 55m off its books as an unpaid debt to a company it has deliberately made non existent with no one to call in the debt. REPO 105?

Are the spvs (who were set up by the same parent) actually colluding with this,the noteholder carrying the debt.

mortgage 2008-1 spv lost 114m in one year alone.!

Edited March 16, 2010 by ryde

[supersleuth]

Hi Ryde,

 

Have you noted that in the lawyer's abracadabra case, the administration agreement was disclosed? Nonetheless, can't you already hear the lawyers saying that Pender stands for the proposition that the administration agreement is non-disclosable?...and the ignorant (or complicit) judges will bow the such illogical rubbish? It seems to me that all of the authorities KNOW that this is such a huge fraud that they have to pretend it is all lawful. The corruption and rot is sooo deep, the accountants, lawyers, bankers and judges are all tarnished with the rot, thus, they have to make the borrowers pay for the fraud, apparently so that they "maintain public confidence". From my sceptical tones, you have probably gathered that I personally have no confidence in any of our hitherto "revered" professions and institutions. The rule of law is dead and this country's professional elites have degerated this county into a wild-west of he who perpetrates the greatest frauds and criminalities will get away with it. Have you heard many people say that they want to leave Britain? It's become an all too common refrain from every age group.

 

All the Repo 105, 108 GAAP accounting rules and any other rules you care to mention are all used abusively. Apparently we had to save the banks because they were "too big to fail", will that illogical reasoning stand for the big 4 accountancy firms and will it stand for the big "magic circle" law firms too? Too big in my book means far too big for their boots and SHOULD fail and should be allowed to fail. It is the "bigness" of these outfits that have bequeathed them with the absolute powers to be criminal and corrupt. And yet, rather than face these unpalatable truths our courts continue to hold these overpaid crooks in high esteem.

 

Sure, the noteholders may get screwed over too, but they were there happy to take the pickings off the back of the fraud they knew was being perpetrated on the borrowers. The noteholders may still get paid with their obscene profits provided that the borrower is repossessed and his home (and family) is "liquidated". Again, it all comes down to the borrowers income and his only asset his home. That's where the wealth is, it just has to be sucked up by the administrators, originators, SPVs and the noteholders. Where do you think their real money comes from - us, of course all the rest of their so-called intercompany loans are just paper, mere 'contracts' given a monetary value masquerading as money.

 

BTW, didn't I mention before that creating a paper trading loss of £114m is not a tragedy for these firms. A £114m loss is a very valuable tax asset to these companies, they get to use the paper loss to screw over the Treasury - again! Hey ho, it's back over to us to shore up the Treasury revenue shortfalls too.

Edited March 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[ZillaK]

Lehman chicanery is tip of the iceberg | Prem Sikka | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[enoughisenough]

Lehman chicanery is tip of the iceberg | Prem Sikka | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

Hi Zill, and thanks for posting this. I'm not ignoring your PMs but I have had a very demanding schedule this week. (So will you from what you divulged in your pm!) I will respond soon and thanks as always for taking the time and effort.

 

This is very interesting. On the face of it again, nowt for us. However if you'll pardon the pun, articles like this give us scope for 'leverage.'

 

Ignore the narrow focus on auditing and accounting 'lapses.' It's hinting at a much wider picture and that picture includes us.

 

The Lehman insolvency examiner's report once again shows that the public should be sceptical of the audited accounts published by giant corporations.

 

Too bloody right....

 

Accountants disarm journalists, critics, regulators and the general public by claiming that the accounts are fairly presented in accordance with some generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), but the Lehman report shows that they are based in carefully rejigged accounting practices (CRAP)

.

 

good joke...

 

Ernst & Young, Lehman's auditors, collected $31mn in fees in 2007, and knew of Lehman's $50bn Repo 105 accounting gimmick, but did not make or demand public disclosures even though the insolvency examiner argues (page 735) that

 

"the only purpose or motive for the transactions was reduction in balance sheet … there was no substance to the transactions".

Repo 105 had been in existence since 2001. Perhaps, the auditing firm was unwilling to upset its paymasters.

 

If Lehman had survived then we would have never heard of Repo 105 or other accounting gimmicks. What lurks in the financial statements of other banks? How clean are they? What shady practices have their auditors approved? Such questions deserve the attention of regulators, governments and the public at large, which is bearing the ultimate cost of bank bailouts.

 

There has been no UK report on the demise of Lehman Brothers.

 

Given the social carnage they've visited upon us in the last three years or so there ought to be

 

The UK taxpayers bailed out HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock, but there has been no investigation of their accounting practices. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), UK's accounting and auditing regulator, has been in deep sleep. After the bailout out of Northern Rock it promised to investigate the financial statements of banks, but so far there has been no report. Rather than investigating auditors, the FRC has been acting as a cheerleader for the auditing industry. Its chief executive boasted that "auditing has had a good crisis" (page 7 of address), meaning that the firms had escaped any retribution. The reactive FRC is now promising to look at the Ernst & Young files on Lehman Brothers, but it will take years to do anything worthwhile. In 2007 it announced an investigation into the work of auditors of Farepak and the report is yet to appear.

 

The main casualty of the Lehman scandal is trust, without which no society can flourish.

 

Actually the main casualty is all the repo casualties that have occured and continue almost unabated.

 

The Lehman examiner's report shows that eminent lawyers and accountants will go to considerable lengths to appease their paymasters and weave webs of deception. Even fines and prison sentences do not seem to deter accountants. KPMG paid a fine of $456m for its role in the largest criminal tax case ever filed. Some of its former (they always become former) partners have been imprisoned and partners of Ernst & Young languish in prison for facilitating tax evasion.

 

Accountants at the Japanese arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers were found guilty of helping a client company to falsify financial statements. There are numerous other episodes of predatory behaviour which show that major auditing firms cannot reconcile their private interests with public duties. The same firms control the making of accounting and auditing standards. Little has changed since the days of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Parmalat, Maxwell, Barings, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and other headline scandals.

 

Without reforms, more Lehmans are inevitable. That process can begin by removing accounting firms from the audit of banks and delegating it to a designated state regulator. This needs to be accompanied by a public inquiry into the auditing industry, the creation of independent regulators for accounting and auditing – not poodles like the FRC – rights for audit stakeholder to examine audit files, and approval by parliamentary committees of all accounting and auditing standards. Yet I fear that legislators will succumb to pressures from the corporate lobby and do nothing. We may well be talking about another Lehman in the not too distant future.

[supersleuth]

Lehman chicanery is tip of the iceberg | Prem Sikka | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

 

ZillaK,

 

What a perfect post. Prem Sikka has got it so very right. The accounting standards used by the big 4 are the, "Carefully Rejigged Accounting Practices" CRAP. At last there's somebody out there with some real straight forward, good old fashioned, honesty.

 

The 'chicanery' practices of the magic circle lawyers is the next lot that needs to be exposed, after all, they're the ones that give the legal opinions that give the seal of (alleged) legality to the chicanery.

[jetli]

Ok understand all you are saying and HI ALL OF YOU! Had to sell our home as said and due to complete (although we dont have no where to go at mo) in 3 weeks. My question is solicitor will speek to SPPL!!!!! (CAPSTONE) I dont want to pay these B******ds off and give them more things to treat in there faver that could help them with your Suspended repos, which I am sure they will use the money for as the Company is not there (Oh sorry CAPSTONE IS!!) Give me some tricks that I can give to my Solicitor as she appears NOW interested after Companies house report on SPPL. Oh and she is understanding my Charging order post thanks to you all XX

[enoughisenough]

Jet

 

This was not my understanding of your situation. Is this something forced upon you by the court?

 

There will be a necessary payment towards them and your solicitor will have to ensure, on the insistence of the purchaser, that all prior registered charges are cleared. This is where the VULTURES rack it up as well. You can bet after years of paying them on a repayment you owe them more than you started with. And you can bet their latest set of figures are astronomical for legal charges. And you can bet they drag it out until your sale falls through so that the **** can repossess you and start whacking on yet more financial misery.

 

If you have a suspended repo and do not want to sell. DO NOT SELL.

[ryde]

jet

eie is right if the charges are not cleared from the property the sale will fall through.

From what you previously said you put the property on the market because you simply could not afford to service the debt on it and I think theres now a charging order on there as well?.

A tactic to possibly consider is to make them a reduced offer for redemption of their charges (both the charging order creditors and sppl) after of course finding out what their redemption figure is.

They may be desperate for cash and to get rid of you quickly, especially with the iminent strike off of sppl.So once you have their redemption figure you could make an offer to pay a reduced figure for a quick settlement as as far as I know they don't actually know you have an actual sale of the property,you could also say that you are making an offer for a quick redemption on the grounds that your lender is being struck off the companies register (in the case of sppl) otherwise you'll just wait and see what happens after all you're in a no lose situation with this.

There have been recent instances where people have been offered a big discount inducement to move lender.

So give it a try if you're having to sell ,you could end a few thou up .

Edited March 17, 2010 by ryde

[freedomofspeech]

Spoke to a person ,whose name I have, at Capstone who informed me that SPML& Capstone are the same company! I find that strange as they are seperate entities at CH. Strange too as they could not put me through to anyone at SPML. they then went on to tell me that Capstone & SPML own my mortgage!!

Edited March 17, 2010 by freedomofspeech
spelling

[enoughisenough]

Well.

 

They are full of crap aren't they. They just believed their own propaganda that this was a rollover for them. Don't forget they were dealing with the great unwashed, plebs who couldn't read and write, people who wouldn't have the first clue how to defend themselves against rapacious ****.

 

Well, that's been given the lie. But old habits die hard. THey slip back into it on the phone and think they are dealing with idiots.

 

Even if they were of course I am sure their TCF "champion" will be working hard on their phone manner to ensure it is neither aggressive , misleading or, dare I say it, wilfully full of sh*t.

 

If you speak on the phone try to record it. I want as many transcripts of these aholes burying themselves under their own steaming pile of cr*p as possible. Call them 20 different times and get twenty different stories...Lies, lies, lies...

[TFD123]

Guys

Still awaiting response from CAPSTONE regarding the charges on my account with them.

In the mean time i need to send them an SAR also i need to make a complaint to the FOS, hopefully to highlight my belief that the charges are illegal, so what i need atm is some templates i could use. Can you help?

 

I understand that dealing with the FOS will delay any court repo's they try to make until the sale goes through, but wont this also hold up the money being released from the solicitors as the final settlement figure with SPML/CAPSTONE can not be agreed due to my disputing charges?

 

On another theme, not looking to linger on this thread with this one, so someone may know of another thread that can help with this .................

I am due to have my car repocessed due to arrears, Mid April case (What a life:lol:) i would like to stall them off until the house sale goes forward. I will send them a SAR too and if i find something worthy of involving the FOS would this also help to stall things. Any help on this would be greatly appriciated, but as i said before i would not like to linger on here with it as it is a different subject.

 

Thanks Guys

[ryde]

Osborne blasts FSA over collapse of Lehman Brothers | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

Accounting for Lehman, or Enron Pt 2 | Dan Roberts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

Auditors' role in Lehmans collapse unites opposition in calls for reform | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

 

This information is an exact illustration of a total waste of useful press space,coverage and time.It absolutely feckin infuriates me.

What bearing or use can it have to anyone here in the uk unless its the city and their investments in this shower of sh.t.

Its like the Enron fiasco just showing how corperate America can bend every rule in the book in the worship of the mighty feckin dollar,we all know this already.

You write to these people and everyone under the sun,its splashed a thousand times all over this site and the net that this **** have and are doing the same thing here and getting away with it day after endless day,repo after repo like some unstoppable manic bulldozer and not one of them takes a blind bit of notice cos theyre sh.t scared of getting some lawsuit wrapped round their neck and can't be bothered to leave the air con comfort of their feckin offices.

The spineless yuppified ladidaerati would rather risk running a story about ashley and feckin cheryl,rather than risk a story and conduct an investigation that affects and has affected thousands in their own backyard and take on the spineless jellyfish like establishment who have turned a complete blind eye to the whole putrescent process,the b.stards.