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

[enoughisenough]

Hi SC

 

No intention of shooting the messenger. At the end of the day we want the truth convenient or otherwise. Mostly the truth is on our side. The prospectus does state clearly however 'Sale of mortgage pool' and 'sale of mortgages'.

 

Regards the term repurchase you are right to point out is not strictly correct. It is a euphemism. Essentially 'repurchase' means a breach in how the various classes of notes were represented in the propsectus.

 

But since THE SPV is an empty shell company it cannot hold them. They will be re-securitised at the earliest convenience.

 

You're right. Care should always be taken. And frankly there's so much other unlawful stuff going on it's not the end of the world if this particular nut cannot be cracked. Won't stop me raising it though. I'm not forcing the pace of this. They are.

 

keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

I've thought for a while actually that the banks kept this stuff on their balance sheets for this very eventuality. Of course they didn't actually have all these 'toxic assets' and therefore there was no real black hole to plug. The securitisation process enabled them to continue lending as they received full consideration for the RMBS packages. In effect then the bail out was really about crying wolf to the government and the government caved in because it didn't want a housing collapse, with an election due. But now they are pushing ahead anyway with the repo actions anyway because it's more lucrative for them to do so. The government must feel very very silly indeed. So they should. They've been conned as well.

[enoughisenough]

Brilliant stuff Crapstone

 

I would suggest rendering the name of the 'mortgage provider' with whom you took out the mortgage as the beneficiary under buildings insurance. After all who else would be the beneficiary? Seems fairly simple to me.

 

 

 

 

Cheers EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

You've got this buttoned right on. Unlawful conduct right, left and centre.

 

Regardless of statutes, there are occasions when the courts can act creatively so to speak so as to avoid manifestly absurd or unjust outcomes. Whether they do so of course is a matter for the courts.

 

In respect of which you should have a look at the following which illustrates this point, both historically, and obliquely, admittedly, but with relevance in any event.

 

The point to note is that the court essentially voided their obligation to apply the law as it would have resulted in a perverse outcome. The Courts HAVE this latitude.

 

 

Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son.

 

There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

 

The literal rule is as implied. The son should have inherited. However given the obvious perversity of any decision in application of the relevant Acts in the son's favour the 'golden rule' was applied.

 

The golden rule may be used in two ways: 1) a narrow sense in which the words of the act are interpreted as leading to an injustice and are therefore reinterpreted or redefined OR 2) in a wider sense in which ANY interpretation of the words so defined leads to a repellant or repugnant outcome. In these circumstances Judges may go wider than the words and refuse strict application.

 

Although this is a criminal case there is everyday application of these principals under civil jurisdiction.

 

Even where they think they have law on their side and even where they do they can still be challenged IF THE OUTCOME IS REPUGNANT.

 

And what is more repugnant than this?

 

A fabricated toxic scandal in the biggest equity cash grab [problem] in the history of humanity. Even the Swiss Gnomes gave back the holocaust gold grab.

Edited May 20, 2009 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Hi Guys

 

Please use and customise the FOS and FSA Template jobby I've been posting around. Get it right under their skins.

 

The following is just a joke honest peeps, including trolls. Everyone needs a release now and then. This is mine.

 

Please be advised:

 

Pressure may cause cracks. Terms and conditions may no longer apply: all warranties given may be void at the discretion of the consumer; you may be subject to the full penalties and remedies availablle under the law of England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland as may apply) and you may not seek recourse through the courts. Should you act in voidance of your lawful obligations you will be subject to penalties and/or fines which may restrict your activities and/or obligations to third parties.

[enoughisenough]

Well said JonCris.

 

It's all part of building a picture of the unlawful foundations and subsequent unlawful operation of the contract. As you say any DJ can understand the concept of misrepresentation and unlawful conduct.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

There is also the very useful Unfair Consumer Practices Directive 2008 which has retrospective effect. This is very easy to find and will not be disappearing anytime soon. It mentions that anything that materially distorts the economic behaviour of the consumer or which causes the consumer to take an economic decision which he may not have done is unlawful.

[enoughisenough]

Yeah but have you seen this. Stitch UP!

 

Accordingly, the FSA wrote to the ombudsman service on 6 May 2009 asking it to consider deferring issuing any adjudicator views or ombudsman decisions in these cases. The FSA said it believed that this would allow it to explore all options to achieve the best outcome for consumers even though this might give rise to some delays in individual cases.

 

http://www.widerimplications.info/assets/pdf/2010_001.pdf

[enoughisenough]

In addition to which...

 

They have argued that the number of complaints is relatively small. Mmmm.

What to make of this?

[enoughisenough]

Vertex Mortgage Services Limited

Vertex is a company incorporated in England and Wales (Registered Number 02042968), is authorised and

regulated by the FSA (Reference Number 306064), and has its registered office at Pegasus House, Kings

Business Park, Liverpool, Prescot, Merseyside, L34 1PJ.

Vertex operates from three sites in the U.K., Cheltenham, Chester and Dudley, and the IT systems at all sites are

fully interchangeable so that in a disaster recovery situation, mortgage loans can be serviced from any location.

Vertex is currently servicing approximately 60,000 loans with an aggregate value of £5,000,000,000.

Vertex has the following servicer ratings: “RPS3+” in respect of its primary servicer rating (prime and subprime)

by Fitch and “Average” as a prime and sub-prime residential mortgage servicer and Special Servicer by

S&P.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

You're right. 2 years does seem unusually short. But I believe it may be becoming more commonplace, as an avoidance and cover up strategy. I have just had SAR compliance from a high street lender in which they state:

 

'Please note that historical data can only be retained if there is a legitimate reason for processing the data in accordance with the rights of the individual...some of the original account records may have been destroyed in line with our retentions policy'

 

I haven't been through it all but what I suspect this means is that anything inconvenient HAS been destroyed and all I'll be left with is a glossed over version of my account history as suits them. I will let you know.

[enoughisenough]

This is just more stalling. Contact the information commissioner's office. Absolute rubbish.

[enoughisenough]

Hi B-0-2

 

In using my rather hastily cobbled together template bear in mind any typos. Also any corroborating regs and statutes need to be detailed along with the relevant sanctions. Also remind the Fsa Fos and oft of what they are supposed to do. Detail All their abuses of you. Good luck.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

MM

 

Bowing to PT 2537's legendary status, then of course if that is what we must do then that is what we must do.

 

Funny how it has never been raised before now though? Also I (we) just had SAR compliance from a high street lender who made no such stipulation.

 

The entitlement may well be there then but it is the exercise of that entitlement which reveals them for what they are.

 

What we can do is therefore insist that they must at all times write to both parties and unless they do we will send it back as not in compliance with the relevant FSA/FOS reg. Time consuming but nonetheless funny.

[enoughisenough]

Just thinking that this creates an awful lot of duplication for THEM, and also a lot more work.

 

Makes you wonder why they would insist upon it except as a strategy for scaring people off and/or covering up stuff.

 

The Information Commissioner's Office is starting to get very peeved with these sorts of tactics. Fine by me.

[enoughisenough]

Do it! They'll soon get bored with having to deal with this rubbish. Bring them to the table by hook or crook. Crook in the main though.

[enoughisenough]

As far as I'm aware once they issued proceedings, or were even threatening to, there are no exemptions:

 

 

DPA, Pt IV, 35:

 

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc [/i][/b]

 

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

 

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

 

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

 

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

That's my reading of the Act anyway.

[enoughisenough]

Mine has been hastily done and they have missed a lot that should have fell foul to the dreaded black pen.

 

Oh dear...They aren't going to be too happy with that.

[enoughisenough]

hi Dotty

 

I can help with this one SPPL and I think preferred are now closed. This was the info I got from suetonius. However I have been unable to elicit a reply as to what this means. Will copy and paste the relevant posts later.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Already posted elsewhere but worth a serious look!

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854.pdf

[enoughisenough]

Ok a General plea.

 

Muppets and devious (deviant criminal) muppets at that. However not so devious that there is no recourse in law. It's all here. A carefully constructed legal argument awaits those who look through with meticulous consideration to the fact that repossession awaits them if they don't. Me too probably even though I do.

 

YOU HAVE TO FIGHT AND DO IT PROPERLY.

[enoughisenough]

Hi B-O-2

 

Defo. It has to be this way. Only enforcement measures can bring them to book. They won't behave. They can't behave. And as such...? Well as we and our kids some of whom might even be disabled watch all this pile of dog pile with growing disbelief at what THEY do with seeming impunity, there is only left one option. Fight with all lawful means at disposal. Notice how I use the word lawful-unlike their conduct.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Get lost troll crawl back under your (cap) stone. Lurking guest for puzzled caggers.

[enoughisenough]

And lo the lurking troll vanishes. Just what is it we say here that concerns them so that we haven't already told them A THOUSAND Times individually. I think they are rather concerned they are up against a community of well resourced, educated and informed peeps. It's rather got their gander up I would say.

[enoughisenough]

I was referred by barclays if that helps and funnily enough all the holding and disbursment accounts are with barclays. Also remember that A&L are hooked up this and that all the high street banks securitize.

 

Keep digging . There is going to be a massive upsurge in reps soon enough.