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

[enoughisenough]

PS Any news from the HOL bank charges decision. Can't seem to find anything.

[enoughisenough]

Thanks mercyblue. I had thought it was today. Must have got my wires crossed.

[enoughisenough]

Afternoon all

 

Just a thought on another line of attack. Say you draw the attention of their sols to the fact that the claim is constituted of:

 

1. Unlawful charges and unlawful interest applied on those charges

 

2. That there is an issue of their locus standi

 

3. That they are in breach of DPA, MCOB, CCA, UTCCRs, UCPD, etc.

 

You the draw the solicitor's attention to these facts

 

They then present their claim to the courts knowing that their client has falsely made claim (assisted by the sols)...

 

Is there cause for genuine complaint to the Law Society? I think there may be. I'm not definitely saying there is and any breach of of Law society rules would have to be clear and fundamental but there may be a way of marrying up the conduct of Capstone with the solicitors in such a way as to bring complaint against the sols. Any thoughts?

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: contents

[enoughisenough]

On closer examination some of the above does seem interesting.

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: Rule 10

[enoughisenough]

Hi Midge

 

Are you saying that this then constitutes irresponsible lending practices?

 

Cheers. EiE

[enoughisenough]

Hi Agatha

 

I'm really sorry to hear how they have treated you but I'm afraid to say thY I'm far from surprised. This huge underselling of your asset for negligible arrears is yet further evidence of their conduct which is largely driven by the logic of securitisation. The fsa are belatedly beginning to take these matters far more seriously but whether the bark becomes a bite is far from certain.

 

Please write to the treasury select committee with information about your circumstances. I'm certain that spml don't want you to do this and therefore equally as certain that you should.

 

The more we raise this the more something will have to be done and it may even mean that since they continue to persecute you after repossession that you have some justice restored. Especially let the committee know what has happened since you were repossessed but also give them something about how the repo action was conducted.

 

Who are their solicitors?

 

Good luck.

[enoughisenough]

Hi agatha

 

again typical but sadly the case with these increasingly desperate outlaws. I thought the morally flexible lightfoots might be involved. The question is whether they have been flexible in their application of the law. Only one way to test that out. Make a submission to the tsc and thereafter the fsa. Although the fsa cannot investigate individual complaints they can add it to their case file on the particularly virulent scumbags that we are dealing with here.

[enoughisenough]

Excellent dotty

;)

 

Make sure you post on the main thread. Just say mine's in... it gains momentum when people do this.

 

What they have done to you is vile and hideous and way beyond any boundary set for a regulated firm.

 

THE FSA are in for a drubbing by the EU if they don't enforce. And they know it.

 

EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Crapstone

 

There were about 11,000 complaints made to the law society last year. Some hold, some don't.

 

All I know at this stage are things are getting very critical - that the pressure is mounting and this is an avenue of exploration when we get a free moment.

 

It does seem to hold an interesting possibility. If the law firms acting for these barstewards are getting a little bit too cavalier with chasing the funny money they might forget to cross the Ts and dot the Is.

 

Just punting this out as a potential avenue of pressure.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

Sorry about your lost thingymajig

 

Just get your mojo going again!

 

Best advice is to keep on keeping on.

[enoughisenough]

IN NEED OF MORE SUBMISSIONS

 

IF YOU ARE AFFECTED BY THIS OR HAVE ANY EXPERTISE PLEASE MAKE YOUR SUBMISSIONS BY 1ST JULY 2009

 

DETAILS ON THE FOLLOWING THREAD

 

THANKS ALL. KEEP THE FAITH

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/205401-sub-prime-mortgages-call.html

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonious

 

The advice you gave our friend faced with triple repo action (on another newly started thread) was accurate, excellent and a cautionary note to all. He or she really does need a legal rep asap if he can be repossessed from scratch in seven days. In order to complain to the FOS when having a knife held at your throat you first have to write to the knife holder and give him eight weeks to behave himself. Great!

 

I'm afraid the rules and even the consequences of breaches of the rules by the knife holder will have to be observed by the plebs (that's us) long before they'll ever be observed by the pleb abusers.

 

Your post just now is very helpful by the way. (i.e the one above)

Edited June 24, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos (AGAIN!)

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

are you doing the TSC submission?

 

I really do feel that in the light of recent FSA 'activity' it's a further nudge in the right direction.

 

And given the angles you've covered in your posts it would really give the TSC a flavour of the before as well as the during and the after ( The after being the unfortunate agatha - at least at this point in time.) How many more are going through this hell? and as for the aftermath I posted quite extensively on this a while ago. They will go to town. the abuse is shocking.

 

They have to expect consequences if they are going to carry on like this.

[enoughisenough]

And then of course you clean your shoes and make sure you don't step in any more of this dogpile... Excellent news in your submission. Would you be so kind as to post 'mines in!' on the submission thread it will encourage the others who haven't yet done so. Thanks

 

keep the faith. EiE

[enoughisenough]

Excellent that should take some shine of the CLM and BBA whitewash. Daddy, what did you do in the credit crunch? I lied through my hind teeth to make sure that some very greedy people stole from the poor. Jonathan Sumption QC told their lordships that the banks aren't Robin hood in reverse. The facts say differently Mr. 50k a day!

[enoughisenough]

Can anyone offer quick reassuring and practical advice to the above post. I'm on the road!

[enoughisenough]

Still typing through a tiny handset and wondering why I bother.

 

Mepho conduct yourself with more dignity...the accusation of naivety is simultaneously insulting and abusive and therefore bound to raise the hackles, something you say you are against in favour of reasoned debate.

 

Your arguments are weak (and your grammar is poorer, but we'll leave that aside). You cannot come into this place and not expect to be challenged either by emotion, facts of law or both.

 

You by the way never addressed my substantive factual point. Was it inconvenient? I more than welcome any debate on any issues of substance arising from the UTCCRs. Or am I just being naive t

in believing that a reasoned debate is possible with the likes

of yourself

Edited June 27, 2009 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Mephistopheles

 

I appreciate it takes a hell of a lot of balls to step in here and declare outright who you are. For that alone all of us are grateful.

 

You did not get off on the right foot by slating the alleged (and sometimes founded) naivety of caggers. But it did you no favours.

 

By the same token I apologise for my barbed comments. I still think some (not all) of your arguments are flawed or lacking perspective from the consumer side of the equation.

 

That said it is very useful to have someone of your experience helping. So once again I'm sorry and warm welcome to the group. People are being screwed relentlessly out here and so any insight you can give into the thinking practices that go on will be very much appreciated.

 

EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Hi dotty

 

he's most likely gone to ground. However the mortgage company are fully liable for intermediary behaviour. I think it's the fsma 2000. But can't be sure. I'll dig it out later. I've got a good bit of stuff on brokers.

[enoughisenough]

No. I've not come across them before. Notwithstanding this the lender is liable for broker conduct. No getting around this. Will pm you shortly.

 

Cheers EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Dotty

 

Bollocks to the pm. I remembered this from one of their poison pen prospectuses to the investors so I'll post it on open; their words not mine:

 

 

The Non-Status Lending Guidelines for Lenders and Brokers issued by the OFT in July 1997 and revised in November 1997 apply to all secured loans made to “non-status borrowers”.

 

The Guidelines provide guidance as to the activities of lenders and brokers in the non-status secured lending market in areas such as advertising and marketing, loan documentation and contract terms, selling methods,

underwriting, dual interest rates, flat interest rates and early redemption payments.

 

According to the Guidelines, advertising and other promotional material must be clear and easily legible and should not be misleading, and the Guidelines prohibit unfair sales tactics. Brokers are obliged to disclose at the outset of the transaction their status with regard to the borrower and the lender, together with details of any fee or commission payable to them as broker or if they are tied to a particular lender.

 

Lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that brokers and other intermediaries regularly marketing their products do not engage in unfair business practices or act unlawfully, that they serve the best interests of the borrowers and explain clearly the documentation and consequences of any breach or early repayment by the borrowers.

 

The actions of any broker or other intermediary involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, and the Guidelines make clear that lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that such brokers and other intermediaries comply with the Guidelines and all relevant statutory requirements.

 

This is so even if the lender has no formal or informal control or influence over the broker.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Uneverdid

 

Notwithstanding other posts on this thread concerning your situation (from other caggers I respect hugely) I draw the following conclusions.

 

1. The cock up is certainly worthy of the information commissioner's attention. Deceased or otherwise it is bound to contain information relating to living relatives. It is an absolutely appalling handling of consumer confidentiality.

 

2. They are clearly under serious pressure now. Good. Let them feel it. It is impossible for a company well run to conduct themselves like this

[enoughisenough]

Hi Uneverdid

 

1. Bound by which code of conduct? My arse. They don't feel themselves bound by law let alone codes of conduct.

 

2. Human error. Are they human?

 

3. FOS? Useless tossers in cahoots with these criminals. Recognise that they are subject to damages claims if they don't pull their fingers out.

 

4. The courts. Did they use the term discarded?

 

5. Crapstone respond within eight weeks? They will but the response will be toilet paper, or rather sub prime toilet paper which I wouldn't wipe my a**e on.

 

6. NO. It won't be it.

 

7. Yes. We will see. These people better start getting educated as to what is really facing them. Half these **** will be trailing down the dole office once they achieve their objectives of closing the mortgage book.

 

So, as a final response ourselves, Clean your conscience and blow the whistle on what you know.

 

Indeed WE SHALL SEE

 

KEEP THE FAITH. EiE

[enoughisenough]

Just thinking that somebody on the inside at Capstone could make themselves a very tidy little earner by blowing the whistle. Got to be tempting hasn't it?

[enoughisenough]

OMG why am I not surprised? I think you are being too hard on cretins. It'll take another ten thousand years of evolution for this pond life to even get close to cretin status. Behave yourselves. You are under serious fire. Idiots. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.