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

[Crapstone]

Firstly a warm welcome to CAG ITBG?

 

You say that the Pender case is not a citable precedent. Is that a personal or a legal opinion?

 

In my own personal opinion, the doctrine of judicial precedent involves the application of the principle of "stare decisis", which means to 'stand by cases already decided'. Decisions made in the House of Lords bind all courts in the Country except the House itself. The House of Lords will usually follow its own decisions but will depart where it seems right to do so.

 

Decisions made in the Court of Appeal (i.e Paragon Finance v Pender {2005} ) bind courts below it and usually bind itself, unless its own previous decisions conflict, are incompatible with a decision made in the House of Lords even if not expressly overruled, or were made "per incuriam" (by mistake). The precedent is followed less rigidly in the criminal division where a person's liberty is at stake.

 

It is the "ratio decidendi" of a case which gives the principle of law that becomes binding under the doctrine of judicial precedent. "Ratio Decidendi" is a latin phrase meaning 'the reason for the decision'. It refers to the way a court reasons and applies the law in order to come to a particular decision. The ratio of a case will only be binding on a later case where the legal principle involved is the same and the facts are sufficiently similar. Any other reasoning within the case is said to be "obiter dicta", meaning 'by the way'.

 

Comments made "obiter dicta", together with decisions of lower courts, dissenting judgements, legal journals and text books, roman law, and decisions of courts in Scotland, Ireland, the Commonwealth and the USA may all be persuasive precedent. Persuasive precedent is not binding but may be considered, particularly where there is no authority on the point of law.

 

As an example, specifically relating to Paragon Finance V Pender:

 

Ford Camber Ltd V Deanminster Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCH 1961 (ch)

 

"47. I disagree with that analysis, unless a challenge is being made to the genuineness of the documents as they appear to be executed. It must be appreciated, that at all material times the title was a registered title. The legal estate is not acquired by the transfer; it is acquired by the act of subsequent registration. Under the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925 which applied to the transfer, LAW, like any other transferee with a right to register, is enabled to deal with the title before becoming registered, see s.37 LRA 1925.

 

The effect of the transfer is to transfer the beneficial interest in the Phoenix site to LAW. It also conferred on LAW the right to be registered. It could have registered the First Transfer but it chose not to do so. Doubtless the reasons for that were two-fold.

 

First it would be transferring the title away twenty days later and second to save Land Registry Fees. This provision was reviewed (amongst other things) in a Court of Appeal decision of Paragon Finance v Pender [2005] 1WLR 3413 (at paragraph 64 in the context of a mortgagee). Had the title been unregistered then the legal estate would have vested in LAW at the time of a conveyance/transfer in its favour.

 

It might then be subject to an obligation to retransfer back to Tesco, but that does not affect the plain fact that LAW acquired by the First Transfer the entirety of the estate it could acquire from Tesco the Transferor. It became the owner in equity and it would become the owner in law upon registration. I do not see why LAW could not "wash" the title through its brief ownership in order to exercise its statutory powers provided it considered the exercise properly. It is not suggested the decision was improper or wrong."

 

Welcome back Suetonius.

 

My comments should, of course, be considered as noscitur a sociis

[Crapstone]

Ryde-We have tried to remortgage last year and they made it so complicated for us to do so. The mortgage is a repayment and the interest at the moment on it is more than the cmi.

 

Crapstone-All cheques have been cashed but it takes them nearly 2 weeks to do so.

All cheques are sent to there solicitors as requested by the DJ in the last order.

We even receive notification from there solicitors to say they have received our payment and are sending it on to there client.

 

EIE-It's not a Barclays a/c they hold it's a HSBC a/c and we have tried this route before, where they even refused that payment and returned it back to our a/c.

 

So in all honesty we are on a losing battle.

Just hope the house sells quickly.

Oh and with re to libor ours is at 5.5%.

 

As long as you can prove you've sent the payments in good time there isn't a lot that can be done. If you send it and they don't cash it or deal with it on time then that's their problem. Your proof of posting is important, getting someone to witness the contents of the envelope and that the cheque is correctly written helps. Photocopy everything.

 

I had no end of problems trying to make direct payments and they are aware of this. Whatever method you use they always seem to create a delay, decline or lose a payment without rhyme or reason.

[Crapstone]

Someone, I think it was Midge, asked me about how they (SPML) judged the lending .

 

This should be an insight into it..one of the few remaining docs. out there..but there are some for other years.

 

http://www.themoneysuperstore.net/New%20TMS_files/Lender%20Details/spml/spml%20product%20guide.pdf

 

A copy of the application form that should have been filled in by a broker.

 

http://www.metrofinance.co.uk/applications/spml.pdf

Edited September 21, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Just read the policy document. What stuck out like a sore thumb was the loading. Not a figure there anywhere near the 7.5% over libor I am contracted to pay. Anyone paying 7% and more over libor? This is a diabolical liberty.

 

Remember that the doc. is for 2005. I'd love to get hold of a copy of the SPML manual that they refer to.

 

I'll see if I can find the ones for other years. I've just lost the plot and forgotten what mine is but I think it's either 3.25% but that's from 2003.

 

My OH checked his credit record and SPML are showing more months missed repayments than what it should be. It also doesn't take into account the amount that's been payed off the arrears over the past few years either.

[Crapstone]

This one is from Oct. 2007.

 

Note at the bottom it says ' not to be given to the general public'!

 

http://www.quotes4all.biz/intser/SPML/Product_Guide_Oct_2007.pdf

 

Also a copy of the insurance and T & C's of applications

 

http://www.active-investments.co.uk/active/download/documents/spml/SPML%20Insurance%20Declaration%20form.pdf

Edited September 21, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

March 2008

 

http://www.activeinvestments.co.uk/active/download/documents/spml/SPMLCoreProductGuide.pdf

 

Dec 2007

 

http://www.fastcommortgage.co.uk/product-guides-jan08/SPML18Dec08.pdf

[Crapstone]

wouldn't there be some sort of tax evasion accounting issues here?

 

I'm sure there is and we are only just scratching the surface of this circus. There are other accounts apart from Eurosail and the ones named so far.

[Crapstone]

My payments taken used to say SPML SPSH. I know that it was securitised to Mortgage Funding 2008. Now the account payments have changed to SPML- MGE FN 08 1T.

 

ITBG,

 

The insurance point was picked up on a while ago when I had to make an insurance claim.

 

You'll also note that the t &c's say that any money arising from an insurance claim must be held in trust for said company.

 

I refused to name the beneficiary on my insurance and contacted Capstone when made the claim. I informed that that I felt it was duty to directly inform the company or entity that claimed to have the security and not go via them...

 

How happy and forthcoming were they? A stoney silence... so the complaint is now sitting elsewhere awaiting an outcome on the legality.

 

As you say if my house caught fire, fell over..where does that leave me and the balance of the mortgage in relation to insurance and a 3rd party? I have a right to know this as I'm paying for the insurance and the mortgage plus all the other associated payments made in the first instance.

[Crapstone]

Just my mumblings....

 

The gable end of my house bows out and wasn't picked up on the survey, either of them. My insurance company blamed it on a twisted beam but no further movement was expected and listed it as safe despite my concerns of subsidence.

 

It's still moving!

 

Wouldn't it be terrible if the building was declared unsafe..

[Crapstone]

For Capstone and SPML it's business as normal. Nothing has changed as yet. Each has its own legal entity in the web and are not under PWC. Any viable parts of the company will be spared and have to continue unless instructed otherwise.

 

Just because Lehman has gone down it's not cut and shut for the rest of the arm.

 

I'd have thought more complaints would have been upheld but they still have a high percentage.

 

Complaints data

[Crapstone]

Just thought...what if the equity holders had have gone under? Does it pass back to SMPL (at what cost) or would a trustee be involved as it would surely be an asset of the equity holder?

 

I'm probably missing something obvious on that but thought I'd ask and make meself look a dork anyway!

[Crapstone]

A non nocturnal comment from crapstone is this a first?I haven't the foggiest about your query so I guess that makes us dorks in arms.

 

Don't knock it ...it's my quiet time

[Crapstone]

I think it just means that the documents have been supplied and the accounting requirements are up to date. Something which Companies House have yet to amend in due course.

[Crapstone]

A lot to digest so can't comment until I've read it all and even then it's stayed in the UK until 1/10/09.

 

It does however seem that the judges are going in favour of what is an economical solution and not the letter of the law. Moving the goalposts...

[Crapstone]

I wonder how any of this would work, providing that the subject matter includes our houses. Our contracts would prevail and the various solutions available to us would surely make any recouping pointless and costly to any investor.

 

It's more likely that a pay off would happen and the fixed assets would remain with Lehmans due to the complex nature. The investors aren't going to want a slice of property with all the admin costs and hoops to jump through.

[Crapstone]

http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/Lehman_Witness_Statement_1010108.pdf

[Crapstone]

The link I posted lists Mable......

[Crapstone]

LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC - LEHMQ Annual Report (10-K) EXHIBIT 21.01

 

Shows the parent and subsidiary relationships.

[Crapstone]

Hi

 

Correct, it is not that there is 'nothing to show', the fact is that SPML is not in administration.

 

Dangermouse

 

I think it's only a matter of time until they are though. They are not realistically viable and are possibly being spared whilst the main bodies issues are resolved first and the position clarified.

 

It makes sense that they continue otherwise the vast mess that PWC are trying to wade through would be even deeper and the consumer implications would further add to the tangle.

[Crapstone]

Article: Lehman Brothers in shock brand consolidation U-turn. | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

 

It would seem that it would be under the same. Will keep looking though.

 

You did say that your mortgage had been transfered to SPML. If so then it would now be in the chain of subsidaries.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Just stumbled upon something that looks interesting..Haven't read it yet but it refers to SPML, restructuring and Resetfan.

 

Follow the blue links through.

 

https://dochub.millernash.com/dochub/spfctrust/Statement.pdf

[Crapstone]

Looks like they have been in the s*** for years and have done nothing but restructure time and time again. Juggling the vast amounts of company names they have across the globe.

 

You can't tell me that Lehmans didnt know it was all going to go belly up years before it happened.

[Crapstone]

I conclude that any action by us, against any subsidiary of Lehmans is going to be too little too late.

 

Assuming there isn't a buyer then surely there can only be one of two situations. Either our mortgages will be managed by a trustee or handed to the equitable owners, if property/consumer /bankrupty law allows for that and continuation of contract. It seems at the moment that the 2 cases against Lehmans appear to be siding with the investors.

 

I don't know if anyone has read the background to the cases but overseas investors in Lehmans are using the UK courts because this is where the assets are held that they are laying claim upon.

 

It seems like only a matter of time before SPML and Capstone are no longer a player..It's possible that Capstone may run out of money before then.

 

I'm now beginning to wonder what rights we would have under the contract or as a claim? Would it be under a government fund? By the time PwC have finished there isn't going to be anything left in the kitty to even think about court action against SPML et al.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or am I jumping the gun?

[Crapstone]

SPML and Capstone are not insolvent....yet. I guess it will eventually filter down..once legal cases are decided upon regarding the investors and unfair charges.

 

Withholding payment isn't going to help anyone least of all anyone that proposes to do it. It just gives them more reason to get your house and you risk being classed as making yourself intentionally homeless or possibly excluded from any future rescue/fund scheme.

[Crapstone]

EIE, You can't 'go on strike' when it comes to a contract of this nature but I know what you mean..Made me laugh though. Pass me brazier and a picket banner...

 

I wonder if contract law would apply in looking at breach that 'could' be made by the company. Realising that non-performance will occur....despite their previous not so cunning plans that we aren't supposed to know about.

 

If our mortgages were contracted to run for x amount of years, and that no longer seems possible then the question needs to be put as to how the contract will be perfected.

 

I think it's time to get MP's on side and query where the Lehmans mess will leave us in the long term.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Crapstone