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

[littledotty27]

Hi all

 

Back in court tomorrow,not looking forward to it.

Anyway been through the SAR with a fine tooth comb,all the arrears missed do not add up to the amount they state.

When a payment returned to the bank and re-issued and got returned again,they added that months payment twice to the arrears. (hope i'm making sense).

 

There quite a few other things ive found,but im struggling on how I can put my point across to the DJ.

I am also putting property up for sale in a couple of weeks,so hoping DJ will adjourn for a little while at least until we sell.

Has anyone had any further luck with the FOS?

[iconoclash]

Hi Littledotty - Good Luck for tomorrow. I cant see any reason why the DJ wont listen to your side of things - there have been lots of directions given to courts about the suffering consumers etc - so long as you have the information to hand to show which regs and terms are being violated and just cause in your request to be excused any breach of contract on your part as opposed to what godamn excuses they might have for breaching stuff on their side! - admit I havent followed the thread much lately for various reasons but assume this is a repo action? if so you no doubt have the list of recommended courses of actions lenders should take BEFORE resorting to court and repo - all the best

[littledotty27]

I havent followed the thread much lately for various reasons but assume this is a repo action? if so you no doubt have the list of recommended courses of actions lenders should take BEFORE resorting to court and repo

 

This has been ongoing since Nov 2006,eight times a year I've trotted backwards and forwards to court and still none the wiser of where its all going to end or if it ever will end!!

 

I've put all these points across before in witness statements etc..they just seem to get brushed under the carpet.

[brassed-off-2]

Good Luck Little Dotty... We Have Every Faith In You !!

[Crapstone]

Littledotty, it's really annoying when you do all the hard work and the judge 'brushes' it aside.

 

I presume you have provided the judge with all the facts and paperwork you are contesting when you attend? Point out the figures you are most confident are wrong and inform the judge that it is becoming stressful after such a long period of time being in dispute.

 

Just keep it short and to the point. You dispute the amount of arrears and the claimants ability to provide clear statements (or anything else that relates to the account).

 

Resist the temptation to try to point out every little error otherwise you end up waffling ( or is that just me?). Try to sound clear and confident but I'm sure you will anyway.

 

The very best of luck for tomorrow. You deserve it.

[enoughisenough]

Hi all

 

I'm sorry I wasn't for some reason getting notifications of these posts.

 

The reason I'm sorry is I have a cast iron way of making sure the DJ can't brush aside what we say. I wish I'd been in time to help little dotty and I hope things pan out for you. For any other cagger, or indeed Dotty, if you have to go back again PLEASE check out the following link. It essentially means, as directed by the EU, and therefore binding on all UK courts that the Courts MUST assess the fairness of the standard terms of the contract and its operation, on behalf of the consumer. Please use this. No DJ will want an LIP telling them they haven't done their job especially when the LIP is right. It's a sure fire basis for appeal, that 99.9 times out of a hundred, the repo would be unlawful because of procedural impropriety.

 

Murciano Quintero (Environment and consumers) [2000] EUECJ C-240/98 (27 June 2000)

Edited June 17, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos

[littledotty27]

Well it didn't go very well,DJ was very biased and seemed to be on SPML side today,DJ seemed very rude and abrupt.

We have been given 3 months to sell and if not sold SPML have every right to repo!!!

Wasn't interested that they had over charged on arrears even though I had all the evidence in front of me,not interested that they are in breach of contract and certainly not interested in anything else I had to discuss!!

 

Felt like i've wasted my time preparing and getting all the details together what the courts have asked for...just to be ignored!!!

Sorry if im ranting .

Is there any judges out there that are going to listen to us borrowers? I think not,as at the end of the day we are bad borrowers to them.

[truro]

Hi All

 

Had my hearing and hanging on as SPML's brief insist I prove my ability to pay off the arrears because I was off sick for some time. Tried to get hold of the TV reporter but he hasn't got back to me yet.

I'm not sure who else contacted him, other than Littledotty, but it seems he has lost interest.

 

At the hearing I asked the DJ to consider info I found in the Lehman's prospectus. The Lehman Brothers Prospectus dated 16 November 2007. I would not like to repeat what he said when I argued that I have reason to believe that Spml is not the legal titleholer of my property and that Eurosail is. The eviction date has been ordered so he set aside my findings about these legal crooks even though its clear in the prospectus the relationships between the SPV and the companies they buy up to do their dirty trading in terms of people who they target such as remortgages, CCJ's, low incomes and other such unfair credit agreements, because they know if you default on the agreement they can repossess you which is what they have be set-up to do, and that's when Eurosail registers its interest, all apart of their plan.

I don't want to extract too much of the obvious fraud that's been going on - you should have a look you won't be surprise by the way they have operated and yet the DJ did not consider 'unfair relationships' in my case.

The Issuer has been established to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans (individually the “Loans”, collectively and, together with the Collateral Security (as defined in Condition 2 (Status, Security and Administration)) relating thereto, the “Mortgage Pool”): (i) originated by Matlock London (formerly Matlock London Limited) (“Matlock”) trading as London Mortgage Company (by itself or in association with a Remote Processor (as defined under “Title to the Mortgage Pool” below)) and acquired by Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (“SPML”). and -

·

Enforcement - In order to enforce a power of sale in respect of a property, the relevant mortgagee (which may be the relevant Legal Titleholder, the Issuer or the Trustee) must first obtain possession of the Property. Possession is usually obtained by way of a court order although this can be a lengthy and costly process and will involve the mortgagee assuming certain risks. See “Title to the Mortgage Pool - Enforcement Procedures” and “Repossession Procedures”

There is a section which states -(such as overpayments by Borrower) ----- which I have interpreted to mean they have a special account for such sums which is probably never refunded back to the borrowers.

My eviction looks like it will go ahead as I can't pay off my arrears but I'm not giving up the fight for justice, knowing they have driven me into arrears and was reasonable in not accepting monies I tried to pay to reduced my arrears just so they can repossess. Come the day I might just lock myself in the house as a protest, wish I was that brave!

[enoughisenough]

Use my argument above. Grounds for appeal. You don't need the DJs permission. The court was in breach of EU law. Beginning and end of story.

 

Here are the relevant extracts.

 

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

 

The aim of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires Member States to lay down that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfair nature of such terms. In disputes where the amounts involved are often limited, the lawyers' fees may be higher than the amount at stake, which may deter the consumer from contesting the application of an unfair term. While it is the case that, in a number of Member States, procedural rules enable individuals to defend themselves in such proceedings, there is a real risk that the consumer, particularly because of ignorance of the law, will not challenge the term pleaded against him on the grounds that it is unfair. It follows that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

 

it is hardly conceivable that, in a system requiring the implementation of specific group actions of a preventive nature intended to put a stop to unfair terms detrimental to consumers' interests, a court hearing a dispute on a specific contract containing an unfair term should not be able to set aside application of the relevant term solely because the consumer has not raised the fact that it is unfair. On the contrary, the court's power to determine of its own motion whether a term is unfair must be regarded as constituting a proper means both of achieving the result sought by Article 6 of the Directive, namely, preventing an individual consumer from being bound by an unfair term, and of contributing to achieving the aim of Article 7, since if the court undertakes such an examination, that may act as a deterrent and contribute to preventing unfair terms in contracts concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers.

 

1. The protection provided for consumers by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.

 

2. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.

 

If you're not sure what this means, post back and I'll help!.

 

 

Cheers EIE.

 

You are not wasting your time. The court is obliged and failed in its duty.

[littledotty27]

I'm sure these DJ are note holders,like Truro states, the DJ are not interested in what the little fish have to say,there only interested in the bigger fish!!

Good luck Truro,hope everything works out ok for you.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Truro, Hi Dotty advice posted above aimed at Dotty but might equally apply to Truro.

 

Yes. ITN have given up...seemed very interested and then nothing... of course the and finally item usually goes to a skateboarding dog.

 

You can both fight this if the DJ did not observe his/her obligation under EU law to assess the fairness of the terms. And he/she didn't!

[truro]

Hi Littledotty

 

So sorry to hear the DJ did'nt consider your evidence and was biased and in favour of SPML repossessing. I'm on a bit of a downer today as I won't be rehoused and don't want to have to depend on any of my family to put me up. You still have time for another hearing and one of the DJ might consider the facts before them. Keep trying don't give up don't let them win your loss is their gain.

[JonCris]

Well it didn't go very well,DJ was very biased and seemed to be on SPML side today,DJ seemed very rude and abrupt.

We have been given 3 months to sell and if not sold SPML have every right to repo!!!

Wasn't interested that they had over charged on arrears even though I had all the evidence in front of me,not interested that they are in breach of contract and certainly not interested in anything else I had to discuss!!

 

Felt like i've wasted my time preparing and getting all the details together what the courts have asked for...just to be ignored!!!

Sorry if im ranting .

Is there any judges out there that are going to listen to us borrowers? I think not,as at the end of the day we are bad borrowers to them.

 

You mustn't give up you MUST appeal on these grounds at least Courts must assess unfair terms in consumer contracts, says ECJ

[littledotty27]

EIE

I'm not sure what post #811 means,please can you explain a little more.

[Crapstone]

Sorry to here your news littledotty but hopefully you'll appeal or at least get a sale on the house. At least you know we are all going through the same thing and we aren't the **** they think we are.

 

When will judges ever bloody listen? I guess it's in their favour to find for the companies are they are their bread and butter with the amount of repos' going through the courts. It's so frustrating and the sooner we can all get SMPL out of our lives the better.

 

Take care and stay strong.

[Crapstone]

EIEs post means that the court have to follow the Directive placed upon it by the EU. Even if you do not say the contract is unfair or do not know it is, the court should use it's powers to make sure it is before they enter a judgement.

[littledotty27]

Thanks for clarifying that,the DJ certainly didn't use his powers today.

[Crapstone]

Truro,

 

Your local council should still rehouse you as they can't automatically say that you have made yourself homeless. Don't take no as an answer from them. A work colleague of my OH was made bankrupt recently and has had to sell his house ( waiting on contracts) but the council offered them a bungalow today.

 

Stay strong my friend.

[Crapstone]

Well you don't really have anything to lose by putting in an appeal at least they have to take you down fighting. Did you point out any special circumstances such as having to stay close to schools, caring for family, medical reasons, job etc.?

[littledotty27]

Just a quick question,spml have not complied with SAR's do I wait till the 40 days are up which is 26th june or can I complain to Information Commisioner Office?

[Crapstone]

I'd wait until the full 40 days are up just to be sure unless they have informed you in writing that they will not be providing any further information and that they have complied to your SAR.

[enoughisenough]

Sorry Dotty

 

I have been working very late and therefore unable to respond personally. However, Crapstone puts it in a nutshell.

 

The courts are obliged to examine the terms of your contract. If they do not then game over for any decision made at that court. The decision cannot stand on those grounds alone.

 

Appeal, appeal, appeal. They have got it wrong. Even the House of Lords can't overturn this one.

 

However, at this level the costs go up, and therefore it gets more scary. It is designed to intimidate you into not going for it. Your upfront costs will be relatively small, but still very expensive for ordinary folk like us.

 

The risks of you losing and therefore having to pay their costs are very minimal, but the risk exists nonetheless. They count on this fact to remain unchallenged.

 

If you lose you could always sue the government for so called francovich damages

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/stateliability.htm

 

and you would win there because the government is liable for any loss where the state or an emanation of the state( in this case its own County Courts) has failed to implement a directive to give full effect to the intentions of the relevant EU directive.

 

Sorry if I started off clearing things up and then confused you with more stuff but I'm right on this. Appeal on these grounds, do so quickly and you will have a very strong chance of getting the decision changed in your favour.

 

Let me know. I can help with the detail of how to do this stuff.

 

Cheers. EIE.

Edited June 18, 2009 by enoughisenough
Appended link for the francovich principle

[lola and cecil]

Do you know that is exactly how our DJ was and so much so that we have put in a compliant against the judge but they only follow it up once the case has been concluded - they're probably getting their pensions paid by the SUV - makes me sick and I was really annoyed how the judge was....

 

I'm losing all faith in the law of the land - how the hell you going to sell in such a short time - how stupid is that...????particularly these days -!!!aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I really feel for you..

 

Our argument is up in the air with the Land Registry and all sorts, the Trading Standards, Police

[enoughisenough]

Just Bumping this.

 

The court is obliged to consider whether the contract contains within it unfair terms, even if the defending party makes no such request. Even the HOL cannot overturn this. God bless the European Court of Justice.

 

Murciano Quintero (Environment and consumers) [2000] EUECJ C-240/98 (27 June 2000)

 

Also from Crapstone, in less formal form, but equally valid:

 

Courts must assess unfair terms in consumer contracts, says ECJ

 

This is not a red herring. If the court did not, as it must, consider whether the terms of the contract are fair then kaput! Any suspended order, sale order or any other order is voided.

 

Keep the faith EIE.

[enoughisenough]

I've got an MA and was told by my careers adviser at 16 that university wasn't for the likes of me. Sink Comprehensive in the north? Forget it. Go and get an apprenticeship at the shipyards that were busy being closed down.

 

My point? That the law exists to preserve wealth ownership. They don't like us. In fact they hate us when we start getting uppity and demanding our rights. They give us these rights on paper to show that the system is fair. Just don't get any silly bloody ideas about exercising them, because then we'll have to switch into attack/stitch up mode and that increases the danger of the whole rotten edifice being exposed for what it is.

 

Look at the bank charges stitch up. We can't claim but they can carry on charging. Nearly two years now and the HOL still hasn't given their speech. I know they will soon and have a good chance of ruling in our favour. Then what will happen? The banks could simply refuse to pay it back citing the 'credit crunch' as a force majeure. They could lock themselves in with their chums in the OFT to decide what is fair for months. They could even win!! (Perish the thought)