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

[ryde]

GR you havent been exiled from these shores and denied food and shelter for 200miles yet then?!(extract from spartacus now theres a good name for a cagger!!may adopt it!)

Agree totally with your comments about capstone.As previously posted I am involved in litigation with pml and all the instruction to solicitors is from capstone as though they are acting as their attorneys .This has been pointed out to the court who have done nothing as usual and not even questioned it.

As BONA has pointed out he had a forced sale with gmac, instead of having to wait all these years for the fsa to act it is outrageous that the courts were not given the same guidelines or used some discretion to make judgements in these repo cases,how can you compensate people for being forced out of their homes and the distress that creates.

All lenders as far as I know charge varying monthly arrears fees,fees for field arrears councillors who you are forced to see etc driving the homeowner in arrears closer to the brink when the fees charged could be going towards the actual arrears .Does the fsa findings set the precedent where the charging of these fees by all lenders is now obsolete and there is a right to claim back all the fees charged by them in the past because they were all doing it.Woolwich for example £40 a month arrears fee,late collection fee for all the time you are in arrears thats £40 less towards your arrears every month,if the fsa have made these findings against gmac they should apply across the board to all lenders we should then have a refund similar to the bank charges fiasco type situation.

One really important point can the fsa findings and the unfair arrears charges now be used as a viable defence in Court.

 

catchy keithybatCan you ask capstone to give you a personal direct contact address ,name and number ofyour mortgage lender with whom you have your mortgage contract because you wish to discuss you contract privately with them or words to that effect,you are unable to contact them over this because all you keep getting are capstone staff and your contract is not with capstone but with spml or pml etc and they no longer seem to exist and you have not been notified that your contract has been transferred to capstone.

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

This is the GMAC Final Notice. Part two is a list of their offences. The shirt off my back is yours if you can show me which one of these does not apply to Capstone Mortgage Services.

 

Quote:

FINAL NOTICE

 

GMAC-RFC Limited 5 Arlington Square, Downshire Way, Bracknell RG12 1WA 28 October 2009

 

TAKE NOTICE: the Financial Services Authority of 25 the North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS (“the FSA”) gives you final notice about a requirement to pay a financial penalty:

 

1. THE PENALTY

 

1.1. The FSA gave GMAC-RFC Limited (“GMAC”/“the firm”) a Decision Notice on 26 October 2009 which notified the firm that pursuant to section 206 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“the Act”), the FSA had decided to impose a financial penalty of £2.8 million on the firm. This penalty is imposed for breaches of Principle 3 (Management and control) and Principle 6 (Customers’ interests) of the Principles for Businesses (“the Principles”) and Rules 12.4.1 R and 13.3.1 R in the Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (“MCOB”) in the period between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008

 

This and more was posted earlier by eie and others.

 

I must admit I never knew of this act which needs to be looked at in depth because this must contain all the reasons and answers for everyones complaints and this act should be quoted in any complaint to the fsa.If this act is law any breaches of the act or mcob must be viable defences for any repo actions in court by the lender on excessive administrative charges alone.Surely the fsa have set a precedent in enforcing these rules they cannot apply them to one and ignore all the others.Will look into this in depth.(what figure do they set, if any, as an acceptable arrears administration fee ,thats the real question, because anything in excess should be reclaimable)

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

BBC NEWS | Business | Five-year block on repossession originally posted by EIE.

this is a very interesting post and well worth a look as I was not aware loans of this size were governed by the consumer credit act which I thought had a financial ceiling its also an excellent defence as there has been a settlement on this basis.Its getting back to what GR has been saying,dare I say it,is the tide turning at last?

 

catchy

can you ask them for a name, that is the person in charge of spml, because you have a private important enquiry that concerns your mortgage contract and you cannot contact anybody directly from spmlthanks in advance.

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eie,

totally agree until legal title passes to spv/investor we all have problems with the mortgagees we are stuck with.(we will then have a new set of problems but this will be the time to object to the transfer to the land registry.)

 

It would cost nothing however to hit the fsa with our own complaints,at least they are doing something now and the more complaints the better,it has to be a viable defence for anyone facing litigation that they have complained to the fsa who are investigating thousands of complaints against these companies and have already taken action against gmac because of breeches of the fsa act 2000,may even if qouted stop the litigation dead in its tracks.

To start with and keep the ball rolling why doesn't everybody here send an email to the fsa and complain about capstone pml/spml etc and about their arrears charges admin charges etc using the gmac judgement as their model.Then just post here that you have complained,thats a start anyway and will take 5 minutes.All we have to do is find out what the fsa deems as appropriate arrears admin fees if any and complain about our mortgagees remoteness and refusal to negotiate.Or just make the complaint in general terms taking your info from the gmac post.Can anyone post the link to the fsa cos I will do it now,just saves some time if its been done before.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eie,

thanks for posting your link and apologies for not seeing it before but it was posted way before I joined this debate,still its here for everyone to take note of again when the situation is at last receiving the attention and action it should have had a long time ago,so the hard works already been done and looking at the thousands who have looked at this debate,if only a fraction took this action it must have some impact. I will do mine tonight and send a copy to pml/capstone and see if they do anything about the current litigation pending my complaint.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Tell you what ,this forum gives people like me and I am sure many others access to knowledge and strength from that knowledge to carry on with this fight, especially knowing you are not alone.You get one option in court and without this knowledge or the help you get here if you take the wrong option you're b..........d.House gone.

These debates allow you to explore many arguments and make selections that you would just have no chance of exploring in court and the more barriers you put in front of these predators the better chance you've got of survival.Its almost like having a team of lawyers on your side exploring options,thats why its so important.The important thing here, as I see it, is survival until the predator loses its teeth through a gradual war of attrition which is whats going on now.Look at whats happened in just the last few months.The rogue traders have got a noose around their necks now and every complaint,s.a.r. etc tightens that noose a little bit further.Working for capstone must be like a job from hell, most of their time must be taken up with complaints and their whole rotten edifice is crumbling away even their own investors are now on the attack.

How I see it now is that things are already going on over which we have no say or control.

The crunch will start with the High Court decision on Nov 5th from what I understand if it goes the way of the investor as it should do,giving them the entitlement to the legal titles held by the originators ie ultimately pml/spml etc in our case what is their option then???Sell to the highest bidder and recover their investments or carry on with capstone administering the loans in a different name??

Why are PWC the administrators offering an alternative scheme to refund investors and stating that if the court decision goes against them it will take years for the refund?(should suit them as then guaranteed work for years unless it is all taken out of their hands which is the more likely)

The first thing the investors/hedge funds/pension funds they have to do once the legal title to our properties is vested in them is to then apply to the Land Registry for a change of the chargeholder and notify us.Without their charge registered on your property they are b......d.All they have is an unsecured loan.

This is happening now so what are the options for us.??????

I would think that they would be bound by the original contracts we took out with pml/spml etc and they or anyone who takes over is bound to honour the same contract and unless they are prepared to give a legal undertaking to that effect we have the right to rescind our contracts and object to the land registry to the change of the chargeholder.This is then automatically referred to the Land Registry adjudicator.Surely then this will give us some power/protection to renegotiate our contracts at the very least.I believe this is the real issue that has to be thought about and explored now.These events in the High Court and the Lehman administration will not change because of anything we do.We will be faced with a new situation which we have to be prepared to deal with and need a collective answer.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

catchy

can you also ask capstone in some way under what authority are they bringing litigation against people when no one can contact spml or pml directly because they no longer seem to exist and our mortgage contract is with them and not capstone.

thanks again in advance

[ryde]

GR thanks for post.

My problem is unusual in that I am involved in litigation with preferred because I have a restriction on the property which has prevented them registering their charge on it for the last 3 years!!!!!

I am now involved in fighting them on 2 fronts 1)my own interest 2)my ex to whom they completely missold the mortgage using the same solicitor to represent 3 parties(huge conflict of interest) and operating remotely through a broker to give her a completely unaffordable mortgage and amongst other things filling in the income forms themselves without any checks(she was on the dole!!!) she was just given a blank form to sign for a remortgage to get rid of arrears.They then undervalued the property knowing she would default and werent bothered because the loan would be securitized anyway.Problem for them was that the bozos never checked the Register until the mortgage had completed then found they could not register their charge because of my restriction! They therefore only have what amounts to an unsecured loan.This is why I keep stressing the importance of the Register it guarantees title,if someone applies to change the name of the chargeholder and you object on the grounds that you have not had any guarantee that your contract with the new chargeholder will be the same exactly as the previous one this will stop them being registered until they fulfill the previous contractual obligation by undertaking the same legal contractual obligations,does this make sense?In other words its a guarantee.(They just cannot legally sell it on to some vulture fund unless your contratural rights are left intact)

You are right, started with barlow robbins no pre action letter because could not register the charge all litigation in the name of pml.I have now received all the correspondence between solicitors which has all been at the instigation of capstone and is on their headed paper.I have asked the court to determine who is actually bringing this claim and by what authority but have yet to receive any reply.barlow robbins now replaced by tlt once lehmans went bust.

Hence request to catchy.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

GR

your situation sounds even more complex than mine.When the judge says behind the curtain he means I assume legal and beneficial interests the same old story,ie a legal interest will overreach that is step over a beneficial interest .You have probably studied william and glyns v boland and city of london building society v flegg and the principles of overreaching,if you haven,t tell me I can recite it in my bloody sleep.

If you're the sole registered owner she could use a boland defence I was sucessful once as my position sounds the same as your wife's.,a beneficial interest by way of trust,if she is in occupation and was prior to the charge being created that is an overriding interest under 70 (1)(g)lra 1925 and may beat the charge as in boland.You must have been through all this but if you haven,t please tell me the exact circumstances would love to put my knowledge and experience to use.

[ryde]

Sorry to hog the debate but on a lighter note and in no way meaning to be disrespectful I am intrigued by the gender questions raised by our esteemed

sage suetonius and the various references as describing said sage as either him or her.Is this because people think the pseudonym is Sue-Tonius!? I thought he was a Roman Historian and the link here is because this is a forum so et al Gustavius Rex means King Gus am I right,barking up the wrong tree or just downright barking?!

[ryde]

littledotty

you seem to have been with this from the start.Did Matlock bank ever actually register their charge on your property?looking at your extract it appears it was assigned before they ever did and a restriction was put on by spml to stop you selling the property to someone else or remortgaging without their consent while they were finalising the assigment.If the only charge on the property is to spml for 56k and you took out a 90+k mortgage with matlock sounds like an almighty cockup by spml as their charge only secures the monies therein mentioned ie 56k,can you elaborate on this.?Because the register is final ie definitive.

[ryde]

GR

In an attempt to show off my "A" level history achieved over 30 years ago do you mean gustavus adolphus king of sweden at the time of charles 5 the holy roman emperor,haven,t looked it up honest.If you can tell me your exact circumstances I can tell you I'm sure if your wifes interest in the property you own is actually overreached by the charge if this is what you are referring to.

Littledotty usually says on the register. charge in favour of spml in order to secure the sums therein mentioned.So if SPML state that the charge secures the sum of 50k thats all it secures how can it secure any other figure?Your property is charged to spml for the amount of 50k if that is whats on the register but dont forget they also have a restriction on there which means you cannot remortgage or otherwise dispose of the property without their consent.The only amount secured on your property is the amount stated in the charge document if this has been stated as 50k that is all thats secured the balance of the 96k would be an unsecured debt.You really need to get hold of the land registry and confirm that their charge secures this amount.They might be able to tell you over the phone or you can search the register online for a small fee but it doesn't usually tell you the amount that the charge secures in the charges register this will be held by the documents lodged at the land registry.

Another thought it says price paid 50k this isn't what you originally paid for the property is it? then you remortgaged with matlock for 96k because this is entirely different.

[ryde]

ITBG

respect fully what you are saying from my perspective studied Land law at college for 3 years and have been involved in property litigation intensely on and off for 20 years.Even fully qualified lawyers would have to refer some of the issues discussed here to counsel.Look at the legal/equitable title to sue debate alone where in my humble opinion the lawyer was proved wrong as Pender is precedentally fundamental.My experience with the courts is that if you are a litigant in person whatever precedents you state or book law you are immediately prejudiced by your position,that is the constant barrier that you have to get over.The old boys club.

These debates are all opinion whether qualified or unqualified and we all get it wrong even the lawyers,I have dealt with and had experience with solicitors for years and I cannot tell you the number of times they get it wrong.The only opinion I would truly trust is a specialised barrister and look at whats going on in the high court now with lehmans, 2 top line barristers and one of them is going to be wrong big time.You have to look at the advice and do your own research to validate that advice if you are planning to take it on board.Most of the time you only know part of the story.

[ryde]

ld

Your predicament is that you cannot remortgage with another lender because spml,s restriction prevents this without their agreement thus tying you to them and their redemption fee which on the face of it is exorbitant ,if this is your situation then these are the grounds to apply for removal of the restriction which would no doubt be done by mediation between you the dj and the agreement of spml .your grounds being the unfairness of the redemption figure and charges(which are the current hot topic with the gmac decision)Would you be able to remortgage for about the same figure?

ITBG, TITLE ISSUE.

posted from first hand experience from land registry adjudicator(equivalent to a high court judge).I advanced the argument that PML had no title to sue as had securitized the mortgage answer straight back was who owns the legal title to the charge.PML as stated in the eurosail prospectus.end of argument.Argument dismissed by adjudicator and believe me I was praying that they would accept this.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

ITBG

please please let me know the outcome nothing would please me more than for you to be right especially coming from another area of the land registry which would be quotable.(adjudicator is independent of the land registry so any dispute is automatically referred to him by them they don't go into the dispute as long as there are arguable grounds )I am facing months of litigation and if you are right it could be ended,thats why the title being transferred to the bondholders concerns me so much it cannot happen quick enough.My case will soon be set down for a hearing so any conclusive info would be vital.Will look at lra 2002 again.

[ryde]

Do you know this is addictive and better than watching the telly,its like reading a book you can't put down,characters change all the time or reappear and storylines long forgotten it appears come back and are restarted again.

crapstone I believe you are a vet what resolution are you hoping for?

 

What I would like to see is a respectable lender(do any exist) take over the mortgage books of the s.......heads everyone has been dealing with and the fsa force the s.......s to refund all their ripoff charges and cut out their predatory practices by statute so they can no longer exist,I utterly despise them if you ran a shop like they have run theirs you'd have no customers only the ones you'd locked in your shop!!(I run a shop),capitalise any arrears,treat all with respect and understanding on a mortgage rate that is tied to the bank of England base rate and use repossession as a last resort.Such lenders did exist once the old corner High st. woolwich for one where you could have a chat with the manager about your problems but then they were taken over by barclays and everyone became a number and money was God.Surely this is what the fsa guidelines state should be happening in any event.Its not that much to ask is it.?

[ryde]

In plain English (in my opinion), s.58(1) is the principle that the Land Register is conclusive as to title; and s.58(2) disapplies the principle of conclusiveness when there are further s.27 registration requirements that remain to be met. In the context of securitisations, where the SPV (who owns the legal title), has failed to complete its s.27 requirements, the registered proprietor (i.e. the person suing you) cannot rely on the pricinple that the register is conclusive because there are further s.27 requirements that remain unmet. Hope this clarifies matters.

originally posted by wonderman.

 

Sorry but still don't get this in the context of pml/spml etc the spv ie eurosail clearly does not own the legal title in mortgages securitized by these lenders/originators it clearly states that in all their prospectuses,they only own the equitable or beneficial titles pml/spml hold the legal title thats why they have the right to sue,you cannot be sued by eurosail.

An easy analogy is my wife gives me all the money to buy a house which is registered in my sole name .ie the legal title she has an equitable or beneficial interest of 100% but she cannot sell the property only the legal registered title holder can do this.I would then have a duty as her trustee to pay her the proceeds of sale,this is fundamental.

If the legal title is transferred which is possibly going to happen in the near future from pml etc to eurosail they then have to apply to land registry to register their legal ownership of the charge.

So how does this legislation apply here?

 

GR I cannot be counted in as do not have a mortgage with them as explained but will give you my ex's details who does have a mortgage with them if you like as I know will fully agree with what you are doing

Edited November 2, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

GR

This is purely for clarification; you are proposing a no win no fee action against spml/pml/lmc and their various dervatives ie the LENDERS

with whom our original mortgage contracts were taken out based on unfair contract terms and associated legislation.

In my humble opinion this seems fine but may I respectfully submit for consideration that the unfair charges side etc is also included in this action as per the recent gmac findings by the fsa.for the following reasons.

1)I have always been taught that the more alternatives submitted in any court action,the better chance of success,you only need succeed on one count.

2)The fsa have already found against gmac for exactly the same abuses as perpetrated by capstone who are undoubtedly the agents of the Lenders.

3)Such findings by a regulator against a Lender(gmac) for breeches of the fsa act 2000 would carry enormous precedental weight with any court and would I believe be a cast iron certainty for success on this single count alone.

4)Compensation for their practices would be quantified by the court rather than the fsa or the lender(which is a paltry refund of any overcharge) possibly at a much higher level especially in the light of uneccessary repossessions.

5)These practices were also a continuation of the unfair contract terms enforced on the borrower in the first place and reinforce this argument considerably.

6)It would be a relatively easy task to simply adapt the gmac findings by the fsa and apply them to these Lenders and their agent(capstone)

 

What do you all think?

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

CRAPSTONE

Agree fully that the court option is best just hoping to add a certainty to the claim and get proper compensation for those repossesed instead of some ridiculous offer of refunding any overcharges which probably were a main cause of the repossesion in the first place.The claim would follow the line of unfair contract and then unfair charges once tied into a contract that it was extremely difficult to get out of as exemplified by littledotty and most others.

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eagleforms

are you saying that they are are charging a monthly litigation fee of £115 on a monthly arrears agreed payment of £100 so you will in fact owe them £15 a month after you have paid your arrears?????!!!!! if so this beggars belief.Thought sppl had been wound up.

GENERAL re proposed action

I am involved with pml over registration of a charge as previously posted.Originally I questioned in court their title to sue as they had securitised the mortgage.PML then denied this and I was asked by them to prove that it had been securitized which is difficult to say the least.

I mention this here because in any planned action against this group of lenders I would assume they will offer the same defence as a delaying tactic if nothing else and because the unfair contract terms contentions depend on securitization.It would therefore as a preliminary precaution be in everyones interest to have some definite proof of securitization of your mortgage which is not that simple or easy.The eurosail prospectuses tie a lot of this in with account numbers and mortgage amounts and location but they are not exhaustive.

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eagleforms

companies house says sppl active but with no directors !!!!!!!!!what you say is outrageous they have no right whatsoever to make any such charge.If your agreed monthly arrears payment is through a court order thats it they can,t levy such a fee and I would inform the court and tell sppl first what you are doing see if they back off .Looks like they're trying to push you into repo.Have you threatened them with the fos etc?

[ryde]

FSA Register

eagleforms link to fsa register should take you straight to sppl just click on links names (attia yet again ! who now seems to be charge of the lot!) principles etc or contact them through the ever helpful capstone surprise,surprise.

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

What you have both said is cast iron evidence in support of any proposed action .

eagleforms just click on the link i posted above comes under southern pacific personal loans if it doesnt work tell me and will post another direct link.company number 403923

[ryde]

eagleforms

amany attia listed as an individual with sppl but when you click on and search her name not listed as a director?mystery deepens in fact no directors listed,don't understand this.Perhaps someone can shed some light.

[ryde]

Whats going on??????????? with Mars capital/ Oakwood HL

 

I have a repossesion hearing very soon which they are going for a suspended posssesion order I know I can beat it but today they have offered me a discount of............... Wait for it.......£40000 ....25% for redemtion of the loan by end of Decemeber

 

Clearly they are as desperate to get out of it as spml /lmc and are not getting the repo's that they expected to, their financial model is falling apart

 

Any ideas how I can take advantage of this???

Or maybe tactics to use to hold on to this limited offer

I have a worse than bad credit rating and this is a buy to let

 

Ohitsonlyme

 

Personally I would thank them for their kind offer and tell them (don't ask )

that you are giving it consideration and exploring alternative ways of raising the finance and in the light of this you suggest that the repossession hearing is temporarily vacated.You could then perhaps see a broker give him some baloney as he's only after his commission and get him to write to them confirming you're seeking refinance.In other words delaying tactics.Keep your options open.Could you get a binding offer from them?

 

Looks like all this lot are going bottoms up and December might be crunch time.Early redemption discounts of 25% are unheard of. see this link which will be of interest to you.

Gray1509

Re: Oakwood Homeloans posession order...

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde