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

[zither]

Does a mortgage company have to abide by the LIBOR rate set, or can it raise it to suit itself?

[enoughisenough]

It seems even the worst sub prime garbage merchants do observe the contractual LIBOR.

 

However I would point out that they do TRY IT ON to see if their typical consumer notices. My guess is that most don't and so therefore suffer as a result.

 

Evidence of this practice is clearly available.

 

Try the following on the LIBOR issue.

 

FT

 

Bloombergs

 

WJS

 

Reuters

 

One of these is bound to throw up something. It is interesting That GR posted the 2008 figures. GR... can you lead us to your source? Most appreciated if you can.

[Crapstone]

One more item of interest. ln my mortgage agreement it states that the mortgage rate shall be calculated on a monthly basis or at least 4 times a year and be the 3 month LIBOR + premium. l've checked some of my statements and rate adjustments and in every case the LIBOR charged is double the historical Libor rate for that particular period! Even if l calculate the rate based on the previous month and interpolate it become a double LIBOR rate! l urge everyone to check their statements out.

G

 

What source are you using to check the historical LIBOR rate on? You aren't looking at the $ rate are you?

[Crapstone]

Does a mortgage company have to abide by the LIBOR rate set, or can it raise it to suit itself?

 

They can't alter the LIBOR rate other than fix it over a period of time.

[Crapstone]

l have access to what l believe is a serious, specialized and engaged firm of solicitors. lf l can raise enough interest and not only talk, then l shall approach them for advice.

 

As for contract law and securitisation, these are two different issues. Capstone are officially nothing but administrators, i.e. appointed by the lender to administrate the mortgage. But, who's the lender? and who's in charge and instructing Capstone? According to the mortgage deed Preferred or SPML may no longer have any obligations towards to borrower, hence, who is then responsible for the setting of my and your mortgage rate? who's determening and is responsible for the LIBOR to be applied? As a matter of fact, this is now so fluid that non of us have a clue as to who owns what, is responsible for what, and why have we not been informed by the administrator about our mortgage situation? l need some answeres and that very soon or l shall take measures required to obtain this information.

GR

 

I don't know about anyone else but when I signed up the idiots both the broker and SPML said that the initial product rate could be reviewed downwards to reflect changes in credit rating and no longer being classed as 'sub prime'.

 

So just as a thought if anyone has has a CCJ fall off or their debts marked as satisfied they may want to write to Crapstone something along the lines of:

 

Dear SPML,

 

Since taking out one of your extortionate mortgages and being labelled as a second class citizen I am longer within the scope of your initial subprime lending criteria.

 

My credit rating is now fully restored, apart from the difficulties faced in paying back the mortgage I have with you due to the unfair charges that have accumulated on the account, the volatile LIBOR rate of late and your highly questionable margin.

As I have been a good boy/girl I would appreciate that

you review the product margin in a downward direction, as

promised by both yourselves and your broker, to reflect my

squeaky clean, newly improved credit status apart from the small issue that is detailed above... .

 

I look forward to your response and appreciate you giving this matter your full and urgent attention (or losing it beneath your M & S tuna and mayo light sandwich wrapper and denying all knowledge of receipt).

 

Fondest regards,

 

Robin Swines

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

 

Have just received further and more detailed data pertaining to the historical £ Sterling LIBOR rates dating back to November 2008 and to my great disappointment l am now forced to admit that l was wrong and the LIBOR rates quoted to me from Capstone more or less correct. My previous data was unfortunately in US $ and the rates significantly lower. However, the last adjustment l had was in June and a new adjustment should be made no later than the 1:st of September, which means another drop of some 0.5 percentage points. l am really sorry about this and blame myself as l should really have reviewed the data better, before opening my big mouth. Done is done and l'm man enough to admit when l'm wrong, even if it galls me.

 

But, to me, this does not change anything, except giving me a bit less of ammunition, as the main issue has always been intent and possible breach of contract performance. lt would have been awfully nice to support my claims with the evidence of un-contractual LIBOR rate charges, but, in the long run should have little or no bearing on the main issue. l'm going to proceed with this, even if l have to go it alone, as l'm convinced Preferred are not performing under their contractual obligations to me. That Lehmans had their own ''way'' of doing business is very appearant in the mortgage deed. One thing that really stands out is Para 37.2, stating that the deed shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales, only to later take that away by saying that both lender and borrower submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.?????????

Talk about double talk. lf the laws of England and Wales are non-exclusive what other laws are we subject to? Tonga? Then we have Para 42. Severance and Modification of Clauses. You should all go through that one as it is a classic, with statements like ...''lf any calause is...illegall..shall not affect the validity of the rest of the agreement??? As a matter of fact, a more one sided contract agreement will be difficult to find. lt feels like l've signed away my soul to the devil. No wonder these guys behave like they do. We are all desperate for mortgages as we must live somewhere and when they together with the rest of the financial institutions control our ''credit files and credit worthiness'' they got us by the short and curlies. We are actually nothing more than ''bonded labour'' held and controlled by debt and more debt and a meager income that may barely balance up (that is if you do not eat to much). l'm fed up.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi GR

 

don't lose heart. This is a war of attrition. I myself had made the same mistake. Getting hold of the correct libor rates going back say 5 years is a must because you can bet your last they've stiffed someone somewhere and it's just yet more evidence of unlawful or improper contractual performance.

 

Check out posts on this and other threads by JonCris. He had a clear line of argument on origination and performance. It may be that you take a different approach but it's worth reading anyway. Pity he's dropped off the radar.

 

Also you don't have to go it alone. This is the consumer action GROUP a community whose collective endeavour brings pressure to bear. It was this group who deluged theFSA and brought the TSC to give the FSA a stinging rebuke for compliance enforcement failures. It is this group that is responsible for the FSAs investigation into four of the sub prime garbage peddlers operations(and that almost inevitably means capstone) and above all it is this community that gives hope to people who thought they were delinquent when in fact it is the sub primers who are sub prime, toxic and delinquent of their lawful and contractual duties. Time and pressure. I keep saying this. Patience and a full on onslaught when the correct strategy evolves will bring a shower of sh*t raining on them. Lehmans have been hung out to dry and there will be a day of reckoning.

[gustavius rex]

Hi GR

 

don't lose heart. This is a war of attrition. I myself had made the same mistake. Getting hold of the correct libor rates going back say 5 years is a must because you can bet your last they've stiffed someone somewhere and it's just yet more evidence of unlawful or improper contractual performance.

 

Check out posts on this and other threads by JonCris. He had a clear line of argument on origination and performance. It may be that you take a different approach but it's worth reading anyway. Pity he's dropped off the radar.

 

Also you don't have to go it alone. This is the consumer action GROUP a community whose collective endeavour brings pressure to bear. It was this group who deluged theFSA and brought the TSC to give the FSA a stinging rebuke for compliance enforcement failures. It is this group that is responsible for the FSAs investigation into four of the sub prime garbage peddlers operations(and that almost inevitably means capstone) and above all it is this community that gives hope to people who thought they were delinquent when in fact it is the sub primers who are sub prime, toxic and delinquent of their lawful and contractual duties. Time and pressure. I keep saying this. Patience and a full on onslaught when the correct strategy evolves will bring a shower of sh*t raining on them. Lehmans have been hung out to dry and there will be a day of reckoning.

 

 

 

 

My Dear EiE,

 

You are absolutely correct and it was this group and it's forum that really set me off when l thought l would not stand a chance against the ''establishment''. l do not give up and l'm not discouraged either, my engagement here should be more than ample proof of that. No, what l mean is, that on so many occasions someone has started an attempt to a group action which has died off due to lack of, let's say, participation. Hence, all l'm saying is, come what may come, but, l'm pursuing this to the bitter end.

 

l know that you and many others here are more than supportive and always willing and able to assist in worthy actions and l am happy for that. So, let's take the bull by the horn and see how it goes.

You have a nice day now.

GR

[Crapstone]

Hi midge

 

That's great but been bumping around this for a while. Any idea where the historic and accurate UK libor rates can be found?. I doubt the bba are going to tell me what the 3 month libor in september 2005 was. I'm after each quarter since then. I've contacted them but thus far nothing.

 

Have you tried this site?

 

Bankhawk Banking Advisors - Historical Libor Rates

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone and thanks for the link which I've looked at.

 

Do you know why they can't provide figures for 2009? Also has anybody cross referenced the earlier figures say for 2008 with data they know to be absolutely and unequivocally correct?

 

I think most people can see the importance of this being right. It is worth pointing out that Bankhawk have major clients including banks.

 

This needs to be carefully examined. BTW Crapstone I am in no way criticising your contribution but I want this to be right. No figures for 2009 and they are the only ones that could be checked for accuracy? mmmm....?

 

The BBA (Bless them) have suggested the FT, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. They could just release the numbers. Surely a FOI request for information that has already been in the public domain can't fail and if it does what does that tell us?

[enoughisenough]

HI again GR

 

I've learnt that collective action on this site is near impossible. People have different opinions, different agendas and concerns, varying degrees of commitment, varying commitments and obligations in their real lives so on and so forth. I don't think a class action is impossible to bring. And once one was in place with a good prospect of success then you might get the bandwagon effect. I fully appreciate the grab the bull by the horns approach but only when the case is ready. Failure is too horrible to contemplate.

 

We know this much. The enemy has already identified their own achilles heel in their risk assessment posted to the investors. THis in my view is what we need to work on. It is a clear statement of intent/lack of intent. These are grown up clever sophisticated people and they KNEW what they were doing. It is self evident. I say we can slowly build up an argument along these lines and then get that refined for legal opinion perhaps with referral to the pro bono unit.

 

To do that we need the following:

 

1. Itemise what is wrong with these mortgages (Might take a while, but won't be difficult!)

2. To identify the main legal challenges to such 'alleged' problems.

3. Draw up a draft statement for presentation for legally qualified opinion

4. More steps thereafter...

 

This is the suggested order

 

Origination & conclusion (what was wrong with how the mortgage came about and how it was ultimately executed)

 

Intent and Performance (unilateral alteration of obligations without notice)

 

Consequences

 

That's it for me. Very tired. KTF EiE.

[gustavius rex]

Hi EiE,

 

l agree with you on most points, but, think l need a legal opinion rather early on. As it is such a specialised and very tricky field, my solicitor is not willing to get involved, or even provide advice. To get an opinion from the right people will cost a lot of money (£350 to £500 an hour), but, this may be recouped should there really be a viable case to bring forward. Shall noiw work on what l have and let you know my opinion when l have a reasonable conclusion.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Let's start with origination. How did these mortgages come about? Usually via brokers.

 

In my case Barclays turned me down but helpfully passed me over to some outfit in Slough whose name escapes me. They probably leave footprints all over your credit referencing in the 4-5 months it takes to get an answer by which time they have well and truly duffed up your credit rating. Result much more expensive credit than you might have got at the outset. Nice [problem].

 

Then the brokers come in and this is the first of our references to the prospectus risk assessment. Have a look at this from SPML Offering Circular August 2005.

 

The Non-Status Lending Guidelines for Lenders and Brokers issued by the OFT in July 1997 and revised in November 1997 apply to all secured loans made to “non-status borrowers”. The Guidelines provide guidance as to the activities of lenders and brokers in the non-status secured lending market in areas such as advertising and marketing, loan documentation and contract terms, selling methods, underwriting, dual interest rates, flat interest rates and early redemption payments. According to the Guidelines, advertising and other promotional material must be clear and easily legible and should not be misleading, and the Guidelines prohibit unfair sales tactics. Brokers are obliged to disclose at the outset of the transaction their status with regard to the borrower and the lender, together with details of any fee or commission payable to them as broker or if they are tied to a particular lender. Lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that brokers and other intermediaries regularly marketing their products do not engage in unfair business practices or act unlawfully, that they serve the best interests of the borrowers and explain clearly the documentation and consequences of any breach or early repayment by the borrowers. The actions of any broker or other intermediary involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, and the Guidelines make clear that lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that such brokers and other intermediaries comply with the Guidelines and all relevant statutory requirements. This is so even if the lender has no formal or informal control or influence over the broker.

 

Lets just chew the fat on this for starters.

[Satoriea]

hi I all I was repossed last year by these animals and they even lied in court claiming that they are unaware of any money being paid to them by my benefits. ( the judge was told and didnt care) My arrears were only over £2000 i suggested to capitalise my arrears. They said they would but they would put up the interset. i then realise threy wanted my property. I was on my own single mum it was so depressing. In the end Icouldnt fight any more. When they finaly sold my house they didnt even write to tell me they sold t. I didnt ask for any paper work or last statements ?I was just too depressed. But every time I hear their name i get angry.

My mum is with them and is off sick when trying to get help with paying the mortgage she was more or less told to **** off. being close to retirment no one will give her a mortgage now. I might claim charges for my ex property is this worth it.

[Satoriea]

As they never sent me a final statement are the oblijed to. to avoid spending £10.00

[charlesGGG]

Come on guys,

What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT,

 

end quote

 

 

Hi Gustav,

 

I have been to four solicitors and two baristers for my repossesion case, going along the securitisation and unenforcability route...due to them selling the mortgage on etc etc. (took carmels butler report, land registry breachs etc)

 

All of them admitted the legal case and argument was "relatively sound" but then went on to decline to take on the case or advised me to just settle with an offer to pay what they want....Hell.! one barrister even suggested I pay £400 untop of the regular monthly payment.

 

I am still looking for a brave legal person to help write my defnce statement, a request for mortgage company to bring original docs to court and to show where the initial money they claimed they loaned me came from.....I want to see their accounts.

 

Sorry i don't know how you come out of the "quotes" box

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

 

Well, it seems there are really a lot of people who have suffered terribly in the hands of these sub-prime lenders. lt is a fact, however, that as long as the government and it's judiciary supports the methods used, (they even used the practices themselves with Northern Rock), it will be very very difficult to get at them. We all know that it was never the intent of either Preferred or SPML to truly engage in any mortgage business. All what they did was to sell mortgages to the public and then immediately re-sell them to investors. The original Mortgage Deed confirms this and as l've stated above, even the basic conditions are so fluid that you as the borrower, have no control over your own mortgage. There is no way to approach this as long as you do not know who is responsible. You may end up spending the next 3 years in court only to determine who the responsible party is. Preferred/SPML will claim that they, in accordance with the Deed, are not responsible, but, the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is. The SPV, which by it's very nature is shady, is located in say the British Virgin Islands and thereby outside the British Banking Regulations and British Law, will claim that they are only Beneficiaries and not the responsible party nor the legal title holders. And, so it goes on until a judge will settle the matters, which as l said, can take for ever and almost always end up in favour of the creditor(s). Meanwhile, Capstone will continue to administrate the mortgage on behalf of the Titleholder/SPV without any responsibility towards the borrower. Do you all now see the legal yarn that emerges? One has to get to the root of this mess and try to sort out who is currently responsible and if it is the original lender, Preferred/SPML/Lehman Brothers or the SPV that owns the beneficial part of the mortgage. Then we have the major point, as far as l'm concerned, which is intent and contract performance. Did the original lender intend to engage in mortgage lending or did he only operate as a intermediary who's sole intention was to solicit, contract and sell on the mortgage at a profit?

The issue becomes legally corrupt if Lehmans did not inform the lender at the outset of his real intention and performance.

 

That most solicitors are not interested is not surprising as the banks and financial institutions are their main employers. That's where the money is and not with some poor punter being repossessed. We need to find a solid and uncorrupted solicitor who is socially engaged and where do you find him or her? But, do not give up, any of you and eventually we shall prevail, as they say. What comes goes around and eventually people will get fed up with dodgy lending practices, ursurpury, excessive rates, edited credit files and outrageous banking practices. Nothing lasts forever and if we have a bit more general solidarity, as they have in the States, we shall be able to correct a very damaging and corrupt system.

 

Gustavius Rex

Edited September 5, 2009 by gustavius rex

[zither]

Blimey Gus you must have delved to the lowest depths to find that lot out. I wouldnt even know where to start. It all seems the most tangled web of corruption or is that a too stronger word?. I may not be able to help much but I would endeavour if the the help is ever requested. Well done.

[gustavius rex]

Blimey Gus you must have delved to the lowest depths to find that lot out. I wouldnt even know where to start. It all seems the most tangled web of corruption or is that a too stronger word?. I may not be able to help much but I would endeavour if the the help is ever requested. Well done.

 

 

Hi Zither,

 

lt's actually less complicated than you think! You need to know where to look and take your time, that's all. Before the crash of 2007/2008, no-one really bothered about sub-prime or securitisation, as everything was honkeydory. House prices were rising and money was plentiful, so why bother or why worry? The problem did not become appearant until the banks went under and the totally unchecked trade in mortgage securities was revealed. Before the crash, no-one had bothered to look at how and what they were trading in. Further, most financial institutions were involved in the mortgage trade as profits and bonuses were enormeous. ln the end the system became corrupt as banks did not give a damn about how the mortgages were obtained, they just sold them on and in large tranches that no-one bother to scrutinize. Hence, $1,000,000.00 mortgages were given to people with $80,000.00 income in the states. Here, it was it little bit better, but, for sure mortgages were given to people with up tp 10 times their income. Of course, this would ultimately fail as the arrears and default rates started to increase dramatically. Repossessions and a nerveous market did the rest. Suddenly the moneymarket dried up and there were no more funds available. ''Mortgage lenders'' sat with huge commitments and no-one to sell their mortgage books to. Bank's sat with enormeous amounts of mortgage securities that dropped in value with 20 to 50% and had to write off billions in losses. Consequently they all went belly up and had to be bailed out by the governments. End of story, except, that we, the tax payers and borrowers, are now footing the bill for everything! We struggle with our mortgages, do not know who owns them, will have to pay for the bank bailout and so on and so on. We should be reimbursed for all of this rather than punished by more payments and immoral repos., why l want to start some form of action against these leaches.

Gustavius

[brassed-off-2]

http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/051006_eurosailSNAP.pdf

 

INTERESTING READ ANYONE?

[gustavius rex]

http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/051006_eurosailSNAP.pdf

 

INTERESTING READ ANYONE?

 

 

 

 

Very interesting indeed. First of all, you can now see, in black and white, how full of **** Standard and Poor's credit and risk analysis was. Inherent risk factors and the rest of the bull**** does not take in to account the true problem and that is how the mortgages/loans were originated/obtained and the loan to income factor. But, what l really found most interesting is the statement;...''mortgage/loan originator''...which supports what l've been saying all the time, they are not mortgage/loan providing institutions, but, ''originators'' or middlemen . This is enough grounds to really start to dig in to the deeper and more obscure parts of our mortgage deeds.

Well done!!!!

Gustavius

[zither]

Do I understand it right that the money for loans mortgages etc originally came from Barclays?

[mercyblue]

No actually its the opposite the money paid back goes into a barclays account, that monthly cheque has to go through a clearing bank.

[enoughisenough]

GR I hate burst anyone's bubble but this is old hat. Standard and poor, Fitch and Moodys were totally complicit in giving various CDOs triple A ratings munching on pizza and playing office golf. Their highly prized analysis is part of the puzzle that caused this mess and is nothing more than a rubber stamp of a precis that comes from the spiv themselves. The real clues lie in the offering circulars and the risk assessments contained therein. That's if anyone cares enough to get serious with all this.

 

Zither. No. The money came from Lehmans. Where they got it is a moot point. No one seems to want to follow the money trail. For anybody who is serious check out Wilmington Trust. I've raised barclays before but it seems our friends in the media have been very effective in getting their cover story across.

 

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[zither]

Thanks-its like watching some sort of film!.