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

[Suetonius]

Do you have any clue as to the relevant link - that actually works and updates in a reasonable period?

 

Sadly not

[Suetonius]

ain't the compensation scheme for companies that have gone bankrupt. Has SPML gone bankrupt now then

 

 

Hello h8them, below is a link to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) website.

 

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme - FSCS

 

"The FSCS is the compensation fund of last resort for customers of authorised financial services firms. If a firm becomes insolvent or ceases trading we may be able to pay compensation to its customers."

 

To be able to make a claim under this scheme, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) must have first determine that SPML/LMC/PML etc is/are in default.

 

If this is something that you would like to monitor, you can search the database of authorised financial services firms that are currently in default, by clicking this link:

 

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme - FSCS - Consumer home page - Default information

Edited October 28, 2009 by Suetonius
typo

[Suetonius]

Since SPPL are not listed (I just thought I'd try this quickly) then presumably the investors have no compensation claim either. Is that right?. I have noticed them claiming against a number of entities I have never heard of.

 

This makes no-sense. If they have a claim against Lehman subsidiaries and if SPPL/SPML etc originated and then sold our mortgages as investment products with an expected redemption of 3-6 years who are the investors making claim against? They are Lehman subsidiaries and the investors invested in our mortgages.

 

Are all the default firms, against whom Financial services compensation claims are being made, merely 'fronts' that brokered the investment and then were placed in default to protect sppl/spml etc from similar compensation claims from us. If that's right this stinks even more than I thought it did.

 

Hello EiE,

 

It is a different type of investor. The posts recently made about investors in this thread are referring to investors such as Mr & Mrs Jones rather than Jones International Financial Services.

 

In September 2008, when Lehmans collapsed around 6,000 investors (who were private individuals) were left with virtually nothing. They had paid for and followed advice of Independent Financial Advisors (IFA's) and agreed to invest money in products that were gauranteed by Lehmans, based upon the recommendations made by the IFA's

 

When Lehmans collapsed, its guarantees for each of these investment products became worthless.

 

There are lots of different structured products. One type of structured product is a Growth Plan.

 

A typical growth plan takes away the risk of whatever happens to the stock market. If it goes down you still get your original capital back at the end of the five-year investment, provided the counter-party underwriting the guarantees doesn't default. In this instance the counter-party was Lehmans.

 

The complaints and claims made against Arc, Meteor etc are also in connection to the information provided to each investor. This relates not only to the guarantees made by Lehams but also the lack of specific information relating to risks by the IFA's.

 

As I understand it Arc have now gone the sameway as Lehmans which means the private investors can potentially make a claim for compensation against the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

[Suetonius]

Can you post a link. I couldn't even find a reference on CH website.

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

[Suetonius]

Lehman Brothers to close Southern Pacific Personal Loans and London Mortgage Company | News | Money Marketing

 

"Lehman Brothers has announced that it will be withdrawing from the second charge market and will close both Southern Pacific Personal Loans and London Mortgage Company." (September 2007)

 

Lehman may withdraw from UK mortgage and lending market

 

"Last month the lender confirmed that around two hundred jobs across the UK were to go as it scaled back on operations. During last year Lehman Brothers closed its Southern Pacific Personal Loans operation, and its London Mortgage Company brand." (April 2008 )

[Suetonius]

Personally I was very pleased to read about this earlier today.

 

I have been helping a close friend deal with a complaint concerning GMAC charges. Taking into consideration the latest events and the previous quotes I have posted from both FSA and the FOS it would appear that the powers that be, are finally taking action.

 

Hopefully this is only the start of things to come.

 

I am in total agreement with EIE that the principles of this notice can also be applied to SPML through it's administrator Capstone. After all, Capstone is far more than just an administator to SPML.

 

h8them, with the greatest respect there are very complex arguments with regard to mortgage book ownership.

 

Personally, I would recommend reading through the applicable threads and then reaching your own conclusions based upon the evidence provided

Edited October 29, 2009 by Suetonius
Just home from work - major typo's ;-) Evening all

[Suetonius]

BTW I do believe Suetonius is a he.

 

Cough Cough (drop).. Yes I can confirm that Suetonius is a he

[Suetonius]

Hi ITBG,

 

Do you have a hearing date in the High Court? Is it soon?

 

PS. Make sure that your legal team read the Law Commission Report No. 271 (HC114). Especially para. 9.4 and 9.5 of that report. And make sure that the use the interpretation of "registrable disposition" as defined at s.132(1) LRA 2002 when they interpret s.58(2). This may sound cryptic, but it is vital to the correct interpretation of the Act.

 

Wonderman

 

I don't really go for cryptic messages on a public forum, so I will post the information, as referred to above.

 

As I understand it Law Commission Report No.271 was entitled: "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century"

 

(please bear in mind when this report was written (2001) and the subseuqent implementation of the LRA 2002)

 

Being the nice friendly person that I am I have attached a copy of that report to this post.

Registered charges as charges by way of legal mortgage

 

9.4 At present, there are two ways of creating a legal mortgage, whether of registered or unregistered land.8 The first method is a mortgage by demise (in the case of freeholds) or subdemise (where the property is leasehold). Such a mortgage operates as a lease (or, in the case of leasehold property, a sub-lease) by the mortgagor to the mortgagee.

 

The second method is a charge by way of legal mortgage, which gives the mortgagee the same rights as if he or she had been granted a mortgage term under a mortgage by

demise or subdemise. In practice, a charge by way of legal mortgage is invariably used, and mortgages by demise are virtually obsolete.

 

There are a number of reasons for this. For example, a charge by way of legal mortgage is a simpler transaction than a mortgage by demise or subdemise, and can be employed to charge both freehold and leasehold properties in one document. If a mortgage by demise is employed, the

freeholds and leaseholds have to be charged separately.

 

9.5 Under the Land Registration Act 1925, there is, in effect, a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage. It will have such

effect unless—

 

(1) there is a provision to the contrary; or

(2) it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or subdemise.

 

Given that mortgages by demise or subdemise are so seldom employed, there seems little point in retaining the option of employing them in any new legislation. We

therefore provisionally recommend that a registered charge should always take effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage and that it should no longer be possible to create a mortgage of registered land by demise or subdemise.

 

Section 132 (1) of the LRA 2002 states:

 

“registrable disposition” means a disposition which is required to be completed by registration under section 27;

Section 58 (2) of the LRA 2002 states:

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the entry is made in pursuance of a registrable disposition in relation to which some other registration requirement remains to be met.

[Suetonius]

Pass me the brick wall when you've finished with it please.

 

Can I please have it when you are done Crapstone, I will give it back I promise

[Suetonius]

following from Crapstone above...

 

1. Many families have been saved from repossession by the simple fact of this thread and the good and kind people who contribute on a very regular basis to it.

 

2. Many of the posters are deeply involved in difficult high pressure lobbying where it is not always productive to scream from the rooftops, and certainly not conducive to any outcome in the general good. For the avoidance of doubt this includes extensive searches to find a top law firm willing to take this on. Further it involves high intensity pressure on the authorities.

 

3. Some argue it does no good. That the FSA, the OFT, the FOS, Trading Standards (The CPS if you want to go down a criminal route which would fail) Parliament and the Treasury Select Committee and the Courts (might as well chuck in the media too) are all so in thrall to the banking system that there can be no justice. Oh? All well and good then! We'll just bend over and kiss our backsides good-bye. The fact is that landscapes change when time and patient pressure is applied. And the fact is that the vested interests of the banking industry will find new ways to assert themselves. If the system is so irredeemably corrupt can anyone tell me what the point of taking this before the courts is?

 

4. I know that there are people on this thread doing their bit to raise this up. And they have had some success in pushing hard at what we know is an open door. We need to keep pushing. Put the pressure on the barstewards who sold you your dodgy mortgage. Send in a letter of complaint. SAR them. Issue claims against them (but only after careful consideration of your own position). Harass their solicitors with endless requests for information. Complain to OFCOM and Otelo about the frequency and nature of the phone calls. Complain to to the ICO when they don't comply with the SAR. Write to your MP. Lodge a complaint to the OFT and FSA, recognising they don't deal with individual complaints but you have noticed that your firm acts in a way similar to GMAC. Contact Watchdog. Contact Moneybox Radio 4. Write to the times the telegraph, the mail & the guardian. Contact your local MEP and ask them to raise the issue with the EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner. Write to the Treasury Select Committee who have been investigating all this sub-prime garbage. Complain to your firm's local Trading Standards. Get the CAB involved, and if you're desperate for a high level barrister to become involved you could always contact your local Free Representation Unitas well. In short raise a stink about this. The most difficult point you raise is that we wouldn't have to worry about costs. Trust me, in a case of this nature, anyone not worrying about costs is about to have their ars*s kicked

 

5. Final point. They were successful in the US on a very simple premise. Most of the securitizations in the US involved wholesale legal sale of the title.

That has never been proved to be the case here, but I live in hope of one day demonstrating such. Until that day arrives I'll settle for what I have always done. I'll keep pushing at that open door.

 

Good post

 

I would tick your scales for this post but CAG says I can't until I share the love around first.

[Suetonius]

oh where is sue when we need her

 

sorry VC,

 

I am dealing with some personal matters at the moment. I am still reading up and will be back towards the end of the week

[Suetonius]

With regard to making a complaint to the FSA. I honestly can't see any harm that this could do.

 

However, when making a complaint I would suggest (without wanting to teach anyone to suck eggs) that you think very carefully about the content of your complaint.

 

Is it usually advisable to break any complaint letter down into three parts.

 

1) What happened.

2) Why was it wrong

3) What you want to resolve your complaint (very important)

 

Withregard to part two, I would suggest detailing how you have been financially disadvantaged and if possible by how much.

 

Part three is often over looked. If you don't tell them how you want your complaint to be resolved, you may not get the outcome that you are looking for.

 

Sorry I know the above is brief, I am just reading through some back posts whilst I have the chance

[Suetonius]

I would like to make a serious recommendation for this thread, as I am not a veteran, I do so with respect to the Vets.

 

The situation with our mortgages/loans with any Lehmans entities, SPML/PML/SPPL etc is now at at critical juncture. It could be at the scale of the unlawful bank charges. In light of this, the CAG originators, are NOT laymen, but ex-lawyers or with expert legal knowledge. Recent posters, are making statements without any verification from lawyers or actual legal advice. Debate aside, I am posting after I have sought either legal or financial advice from either lawyers or accountants. I am not referring to the knowledge base, regarding FSA regulations, SARs, various templates etc., and the excellent letters posted up here.

 

So to avoid any confusion to new or even old cags in this thread, I suggest within our posts, we use a code to relate the 'credibility' of your post and source.

 

For example:

(S) solicitor; (B) barrister, (A) accountant ; (CH) Companies House, (CAB) Citizen Advice Bureau; (SLA) seek legal advice; (SFF) seek financial advice;

(OP) own opinion ; (PO) posters opinion ; (UN) unauthenticated......

 

Too many of us, and I include myself until recently, are regurgitating other posters and posts. These posts may or may not be credible, on specifically a legal or financial level. I have quoted SuperSleuth in the past, because Super is a lawyer, after I checked Supers' info(S&B). We must take caution to avoid giving mis-information which has not been authenticated.

 

comments?

 

 

ITBG?

 

Good idea in theory ITBG?,

 

However, as demonstrated in recent posts two different people have spoken to companies house and have been given two different answers.

 

Different solictors and barristers will also give different answers to the same question.

 

The authenticity is not really the issue. This issue is who is right and who is wrong.

 

However, I would strongly agree that if possible everyone should quote and detail their sources (be it legislation or even publications) which support their opinions and views as I have done in this thread:

Mortgage Securitisation Equitable or Legal assignment

 

Right that is it from me for a few more days.

 

Keep up the fight everyone....

[Suetonius]

All yours Mrs.. (cough)

 

It's in kit form with plasters enclosed..bandages are optional and listed on my charges sheet.

 

lol do have some painkillers aswell ? I feel a headache coming on...

[Suetonius]

Hopefully, this will not apply only to investors

 

Gordon Brown gives bank victims the right to claim 'instant justice' | Mail Online

 

This also makes for interesting reading

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8358417.stm

[Suetonius]

Good Evening ITBG?

 

If you would like to engage in a serious debate, please feel free to post in the equitable vs legal thread, as you previously indicated you would.

 

Just to point you in the right direction here is a link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/210243-mortgage-securitisation-equitable-legal-4.html#post2583767

 

I would respectfully ask you to refrain from making any further personal posts about me.

 

Feel free to attack my ideas but not me.

[Suetonius]

Ryde, I will send you a pm about your posts relating to Carmel Butler

[Suetonius]

You don't know me Mrs... :D

 

not so dumb smarterchick

 

Not so dumb at all

[Suetonius]

Hmmm 3 guests... 1 of you can log back in now

[Suetonius]

are you the left footed one or the right footed one sue:)

 

I'm both if its of any interest

 

kegi

 

Depends who I am dancing with.. If the mood takes me I can lead with the left or the right..,

 

but most of the time I am both too

[Suetonius]

Right Guys,

 

Anyone who have a bit to contribute to solving my current problems is very welcome to do so. This is the situation; l've got a mortgage with a, let's say ''near sub-prime'' lender. l have had arrears of around £10,000.00, which l paid off in full last year. Since then l fell in to arrears again and am in about the same situation as last year. l've tried to resolve the situation, but, have a lot of problems that l cannot go in to here. Now my lender has decided that he's had enough and called in the bailiffs for reposession by virtue of the suspended repo. from last year. This despite the fact that l did pay all of the arrears off. However, l made a new proposal, which is very good and would guarantee payments for the mortgage plus £300 towards the arrears. They kept me hanging on for several days, asking for various documents and verifications etc. only to turn me down today, with a week to go to the meeting with the hangman. l've lodged an application for a suspension based on a forthcoming application to set aside the previous suspended reposession using the Norgan Case Law and a complain to FSA, FOS, OFT et al. But, but, but, have only 6 days in front of me, with a weekend included. Advice and support guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

gustavius

 

Given the short time frame, there is another avenue that it might not hurt to try. That is to email a complaint/ your proposal to the entire board of the bank in question. You could CC various reporters (Daily Mail is usually a good choice) and your MP (just for added weight)

 

All you would have to do is search google or the banks homepage and look for the board. Make a note of all of their names. google email @(bankname).com or .co.uk to identify the format of their email addresses.

 

Then write a message addressed to the Chairman cc'ed to all the other directors etc.

 

It may sound like a long shot but when you call and when you write, the people that you deal with have no real authority to do anything for you.

 

This way you go straight to the top, emphasis bad publicity, treating customers fairly (TCF) and the complaints that you have made to the FSA, FOS, OFT etc.

 

You have nothing to lose.

 

I did this once to my own bank, admittedly it was not for something as serious as this situation. However, I was contacted and my complaint was resolved within 24 hours of my first email.

 

Just something to consider.

 

**** Sorry also include something about the FSA and GMAC

Edited November 18, 2009 by Suetonius
typo

[Suetonius]

yeah, before you've even depressed the return button on your keyboard, you'll be out of house and home..

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

 

After your post yesterday, I begining to think you don't like me

[Suetonius]

If ITGG has so much time on his hands, I can suggest another thread he can post on

[Suetonius]

Just a note that I may not be posting very much in the next few days. My Dad had a heart attack today (his 4th) and isn't doing too well.

 

Love and respect you all. Just knowing you aren't alone does wonders for your moral.

 

I am really sorry to read that Crapstone. I really hope that he recovers quickly. You will be in my thoughts...

[Suetonius]

APB: the suspect known as ITGG! is known to be female..

 

 

 

ITBG?

 

Next time you speak to her, might be an idea to say to her that she really should try not make things personal. It is a waste of time and just looks pathetic.

 

Please also let her know that I am very sorry if I have put her nose out of joint at all.

 

Lets just concentrate on the issues at hand. Everything else (including personality clashes) is totally irrelevant.