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

[ryde]

wouldn't it be intruiging to know of all the machinations going on on the other side,looks a nice girl as well and single!wonder whats she's been promised for taking care of all this s..t came direct from lehmans it would appear.Perhaps she and mr marek are an item in which case her name should be patsy?They certainly focus on their clients.

Edited November 4, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eagleforms

try and supress your frustration and keep it short,formal and impersonal as a lawyer would respond.Let the regulator put the pressure on, just say you wish to instigate a formal complaint immediately through the fos and you require their response by return.Individual complaints without clout will be tossed in the bin hence they've tried it on with the litigation fee with you, there's nothing in your original contract which gives them the right to levy such a fee.

[ryde]

Once you have a fos complaint in progress any litigation by the lender is usually adjourned.Despite reports to the contrary I got a wonderful service from them,they even rang me with progress reports but it did take 18 months (but no litigation and a very favourable deal negotiated which I would not have got in court and the lender has to pay their fee! think its £500)

[ryde]

EIE

In Grs defence think he is under a lot of pressure at the moment trying to get the complaint together and has his own personal affairs to sort out.Goes without saying individually anyone should check and check again any applicable law as you say.

good post rocket my sentiments exactly,brokers played a big role in this on £2000 + commissions a time,very easy money for half an hour filling in a form and apparently no checks by the lender who was only interested in the value of the property for repo purposes.Some brokers got too greedy and got found out and pml could not get away with it with their"guarantees with the spv/investor" but I think it was widespread.

see this link.

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Mortgage-brokers-prison-fraud/article-889356-detail/article.html

Edited November 5, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Don,t forget today heath tomorrow the big one does anyone know when the decisions are posted?

 

take a look at this should provide some interest:will

ultimately concern us I believe.involves lehmans and return of assets to the investors

NOTICES FOR JUDGMENT

 

NOTICE

Take notice that on FRIDAY, 6 NOVEMBER, 2009 in COURT 71, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From The Chancery Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A3/2009/1794 Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd -v- BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & anr.

A3/2009/2037 Butter & Ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & Ors.

A3/2009/2043 Butter & ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & ors.

A3/2009/2047 Butters & ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & ors.

NOTICE

Take notice that on THURSDAY, 5 NOVEMBER, 2009 in COURT 69, at 9:30, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From The Chancery Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A3/2009/0356 Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited -v- Heath.

[ryde]

Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms (Hansard, 12 January 2000)

This link is well worth a look.

[ryde]

mortgages and unfair contract terms legislation - Google Search

eagleforms am wading through this so have posted search link,so far seems a lot of pfaffing about with fsa and oft, trying to find a few cases ,have a look see if you can come up with anything all seems to be in line with current discussion here.

[ryde]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_1Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_1

 

These appear to be the relevant acts please can we all give them our full attention and apply them to the contracts and performance we have with spml/pml etc and post each breach they have made in that performance and the original contract; which I would assume would be almost universal;but we need personal examples and experiences with documentary evidence.We will then have the beginnings of an action, also look at the Hansard link I posted earlier which seems particularly applicable,just trying to move this on and get the ball rolling again.If the breeches can be linked to legislation it will also be extremely useful as a defence in any litigation spml/pml are taking against us personally.

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

 

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for heads of steam to concentrate on all the main issues from brokerage (yes brokerage...a massive piece in the [problem] jigsaw) through to repossession and post possession activities to examine and determine by collective reasoning the most effective way of getting a consumer barrister to believe there is a strong (very strong) case to be heard?

 

EIE

Agree fully SPML/PML ETC appeared to use agents/brokers all on fat fees to do all their dirty work so if anything went wrong they could blame them eg:PML took legal action against both brokers(who ended up in jail) and valuers(which they lost).

Lets get this thing moving again for christs sake with individual complaints with evidence of why this is wrong in law.Otherwise it will shoot off again in different directions,we need legal arguments otherwise we're b.......d.

[ryde]

crapstone

I know the breeches are listed but its over 114 pages and it has to be tied to the applicable legislation otherwise it means nothing.I would just like to see it in an easily compileable format.

eg.post by your own good self.

Crapstone

1)spml have levied unfair charges of £??? this is in breech of paragraph ? of unfair contracts terms act 1977 because ???? we then have a legal argument with evidence .

No one has got time to go through all these posts and collate everyones individual complaint and apply it to the law.If a collective argument is going to be successfully turned into a legal action I can't see any other way of doing it but would welcome all and any ideas.

[ryde]

Eie

I like this idea of a chronological argument starting with the brokers etc and then moving through to repo.How can this be practically conducted through this forum?Each issue be listed from broker onwards and then everyone post any issue they had at this stage and onwards.

eg personally.

Broker x reccommended a mortgage with pml for which unknown to me he received £2000 commission without offering other possible alternatives.

I was asked to sign a mortgage application which the broker or lender then filled in with income figures i was then offered a mortgage the terms of which were never explained to me etc etc

My heads spinning now,please lay it out as you would like to see it done simply for the thickos amongst us,

perhaps list each stage and people post their complaint/experience and tie it to this category with a legal reason as to why this was wrong because only one cast iron example is needed for each category otherwise the process could take forever.eg list

1)brokerage issues

2)terms contained in the original mortgage contract

3)contractual issues caused by mortgage securitization

4)Unfair charges levied by the lender during performance of the contract.

etc etc what format would you suggest?

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Talking on behalf of my ex i believe all posibilities with normal lenders were exhausted then the broker was recommended by the woolwich(its easier to say i did it, as to explain the whole situation would go into pages)basically she's stupid,trusts others and has little understanding the ideal candidate in other words!she was on the dole they got her to sign a blank application form,undervalued the property by40% then sold her a mortgage she had absolutely no chance of affording,in a nutshell.I had a restriction on the property and am now trying to stop them registering the charge.

[ryde]

GR

Everyone here is behind you here and willing to help with your problems,many may have been through similar situations,if you can give us some detail there may be a simple reasonable answer or tactics to employ, its always easier to deal with other peoples problems which you can look at objectively from the outside than your own.If pml are taking the repossession there is a chance they may not exist in a months time.Have similar situation looming myself in about 2 months and have already sucessfully been through the sole ownership with equitable co-owner scenario 10 years ago so know what to do from real court experience.

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

eie

agree lets get brokerage issues discussed,are they in law deemed to be the agents of the lender ie they stand in the lenders place?

[ryde]

cagger 80

can you post the link this will have big implications.

[ryde]

As far as I am aware and in my opinion Lehmans europe being administered by pwc own spml/pml/capstone and the like.pwc appealed against the decision:" that the assets held by lehmans europe should be returned to the investors because of the guarantees in the contracts with the spvs "

ie.the investor is in control of the whole asset instead of just the equitable title because of the failures of the spvs to service the investments(hence all the notices to the bondholders from eurosail) and the absence of any supporting finance from lehmans who are insolvent.ie. the bondholders/investors are entitled to the legal titles of the residential mortgage portfolio held by the originators in our cases spml/pml etc.

pwc had planned to return their invested funds over a period of time under a scheme they had concocted as an alternative this was the basis of their appeal and that is why they appealed because it has now with the refusal of this appeal been taken out of their control.Effectively this now means from my understanding that the legal titles will pass from spml/pml to the hedge funds/pension funds who will then seek to realise these assets instead of them being controlled by spml/pml/capstone and ultimately pwc.

This may eventually require reregistration of the legal charge on the property ,the opportunity for us would be to insist on the original contractual agreement being maintained.

all this is purely speculative at the moment obviously.

if you put yourself on the other side with all the different investment schemes why when you had a cast iron guarantee of holding a residential mortgage portfolio with prices now rising would you accept less and have your investment watered down by thousands of other claimants with different investment portfolios and how could pwc implement such a scheme?they would have to sell off to the highest bidder the mortgage portfolio because it is no longer producing the guaranteed returns.How this is going to be broken up god only knows,maybe there will be a fire sale as nearly happened last year.?

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Just a quick thought if pwc or any other entity will now be in charge of the legal charge on our property haven't we got an input into all this by insisting that any such sale of the legal charge or transfer must be made with a contractaual guarantee to the original terms we signed up to(or thought we had signed up to!)

[ryde]

It,s difficult to see how it can be done say investor x says you owe us a guaranteed sum of 1 billion in residential mortgage securities do they just bundle up 1 billion's worth and hand them over lock stock and barrel this was pwc,s scheme to deal with the investors in block.I suppose the investor can now demand priority and can demand their investment back in full due to the guarantees written into the spv contracts.Are the investors going to want a thousand residential mortgages on their hands with all the problems that will entail?I cannot envisage this so would assume they would want the cash equivalent to their investment and promptly with priority.So if you were pwc what would you do?

This is pure speculation,I would sell off as quickly as possible to the highest bidder or alternatively the big investors could be granted a block to sell off themselves thereby taking control of the sale until their investment was realised.Whatever happens the current spv set up cannot continue as it just isn't producing the return otherwise the investors could have left things as they stand and there would be no reason for the return of client assets held on trust.

Personally I think there will be a fire sale as there nearly was last year with the pml/spml mortgage books sold to the highest bidders and capstone put up for sale perhaps seperately.I believe the only reason they weren't sold was no one wanted billions of pounds of toxic(thats us) debts at that time and the price was too low and no one was making a fuss or litigating whilst the funds were still performing,so they just let it run.

As I say this is all pure speculation and the one thing everyone has is contractual guarantee for what thats worth,if that is not offered by the new owner we have the right to rescind the contract.

Of course someone like barclays could just buy the whole spml mortgage book at a knock down price and use spml as a trading name and continue using capstone as the servicer.!!!!spml would then of course hold both legal and equitable titles and the whole lot could be securitized yet again,but something else would have to be thrown in to the sale to barclays? so the investors get their full guaranteed return because no one will take this portfolio on at face value and pay the full amount owed to the investors.

[ryde]

found this interesting link re capstone ,insurance [problem] etc

Capstone Mortgages - Beware!

[ryde]

Thanks eie and wonderman for some good positive digging am confident this is heading in the right direction.

[ryde]

Consumer Credit Act 2006 – concerns for mortgage lenders | Mortgage Finance Gazette

 

useful reading applies to securitisations and possible unenforceability thought I better post it quick before I lost the link hope I haven't repeated someone else's post.Some big implications here for both lender/originator and the spvs if this act bites and the test of reasonablemess etc is used,please have a look,I wasn't even aware of the act or its implications.

and yet more:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/766/766we10.htm

 

THINK THIS SAYS IT ALL EVEN QUOTES DIRECTLY SPML/SPPL AND THIS FORUM

THIS APPEARS TO BE THE CASE IN OUTLINE ALREADY DONE FOR US

PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AND GIVE YOUR OPINION

Think eie and crapstone may have raised this subject back in June/July !! many apologies if I have hijacked anybodies posts as this goes back well before I joined,shows how much work and time people have put into this for which they should get full credit.

Can the real Mr Fulcher please step forward.

Edited November 7, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Truro

Your defence takes us back to the legal and equitable assignment argument again and I stand on the side that there has never been a legal transfer of the charge from in your case spml to eurosail,the transfer was only equitable as clearly stated in the eurosail prospectus.SPML retain the legal title of the charge registered on your property and as such have the right to sue and repossess it.It is purely my opinion that this defence will fail on this ground but am sure others here would support this.I assume the registered charge is in the name of spml.Have you got a definite buyer for the property ie a firm offer?

Personally i would also concentrate on the overcharging side which drove you to this position,the fact that you have offered payments etc.There must be a suspended repo order for you to get to the eviction stage.

If you haven't seen this already look at this link ,if I was in your position i would strongly suggest you extract the relevant applicable parts of these submissions to your situation and use them as part of your defence rather than the legal assignment argument which from my own personal experience just did not work.

How was the loan transferred from matlock bank to spml and did they tell you,i believe littledotty may have had similar experiences so take a look at her posts.Was the charge on the property originally in the name of matlock bank?

wihout knowing all the circumstances of how you have arrived at this position its difficult to give accurate advice.

anyway heres the link.Just lift applicable bits out and add to your defence.you only have to suceed on one issue so the more the better as long as you can prove their relevance.

link:

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

Edited November 7, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

the thiefs

agree with your setiments entirely but we are bottom of the food chain and law of the jungle applies here.If we go bust our worldly posessions are sold at a usually fixed public auction at a usually derisory price.

These crooks get rid of billions of pounds worth of assets within 5 years to the spvs and trade while the whole group is insolvent,we'd get jailed for this. We should get the chance to buy our mortgages back at market price but they've already sold them and spent the money.

THERE IS A CASE HERE IN ITSELF HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH IT AND WE CANNOT.?

Edited November 8, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

the thiefs

they force these charges on you illegally so they can repo your property this is their sole aim they have already promised the spv to whom they have sold your mortgage that the securitzation will be finished in 5 years.

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

read this link i bet your story is probably nearly identical and bu...r all has been done about it.

[ryde]

crapstone

found the best way to try and make them listen is to go through appeal process they hate that,you have to do it carefully on a point of law otherwise if you are refused permission the original order can stand and it can get expensive,but there must be dozens of points in this lot,most judges and the other side don't know what you're talking about they're all ex solicitors in any case.If you represent yourself and are on low income can usually get full fee remission.

 

the thiefs

no way you will lose your home hopefully the reign of terror this lot have inflicted is soon coming to an end the fsa is clamping down and i think our mortgages will be sold on to another lender who has to respect the original contract we signed otherwise we have a right to rescind it.They cannot be any worse than this lot,just got to keep your head above water while all this is going on cos they will pull out all the stops to get as many repos as they can(probably on a bonus payment for amount of repos ,this is where they make the big money)

Thought just occured to me gmac fined and ordered to refund charges to all who have been stitched up they are still trading and selling products,how can spml etc refund charges they are bankrupt and have no assets as all sold on to spvs and money gone ,would we have to make a claim to price waterhouse when it does happen ie fsa fines them same as gmac, because then we will be shoved to the back of the queue and get b...r all.?

Edited November 8, 2009 by ryde