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

[Suetonius]

Hello Agatha,

 

It is always a good idea to start a thread. Different people have different problems, so the advice for one person might not be good for another.

 

Even if SPML et al were all to close today, dependant upon the circumstances you might still be able to claim and more importantly receive compensation from:

 

FSCS > Home

[Suetonius]

This is the bit that concerns us in full:

UNITED KINGDOM: THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1925

In the United Kingdom, The Law of Property Act, 1925, particularly Section 136 which deals with assignments, makes it crystal clear that alienation by a mortgage provider of all assets that have been assigned without notice having been issued to, or permission granted by, the debtor, is void and fraudulent. Therefore, ALL SECURITISATION OPERATIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE BRITISH JURISDICTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY SANCTIONED IN ADVANCE BY THE MORTGAGOR, with the mortgagor fully aware of the situation, are void.

 

Northern Rock and all financial entities engaged in assigning, on-selling, trading and benefiting financially from such activity without notice to or the prior consent of the mortgagor, are engaged in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. These institutions have accordingly been trading worthless paper between themselves within a fraudulent financial carousel, as repeatedly stated in these reports.

 

The Directors of these institutions should be investigated and prosecuted by the UK authorities: and if this does not happen, we will keep asking why not. No doubt Lord Myners [see Appendix below], the ‘City Minister’, knows the score perfectly well, and is being ‘economical with the truth’. In which case he is a co-conspirator in this criminality.

 

Judgments - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant)

v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

 

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

 

If it is not effective in law, it is an equitable assignment

[Suetonius]

campari2

 

SPPL only hold (or should that be once held?) an OFT licence for second charge lending up to 25K and regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, for first charge lending and loans over 25K you need to be licenced by the FSA and SPPL are not but SPML are, hence the transfer, what was the date of the transaction?, I don't want the day and the month just the year will be fine, whats going to be very interesting is the paperwork, SPML hold an FSA and OFT licence so you need to have a good look at the way this switch was done, could it have done for less? as both are in the same stable, you never know you might find a loophole?.

 

nabl

 

I have a loan that was originally £36k with SPPL. How does that work?

 

Hello Eagle

 

The FSA started to regulate mortgages on 31 October 2004. However, this regulation was limited to first charge loans.

 

If you have/had a second charge loan for more than £25k, provided before the removal of the £25k limit by the CCA 2006, you had an unregulated agreement.

[Suetonius]

PS SUE... Can you please advise further on the regulatory lacuna that seems to exist for SPPL loans OVER 25K taken out before commencement of the CCA 2006. Unregulated means regulated by the FSMA 2000 surely?

 

Good Evening EIE

 

No unregulated means that they were not regulated by either the CCA or FSMA.

 

The Mortgage Code established in 1997 was a voluntary code although more than 150 lenders and 13000 intermediary firms covering virtually the entire market were registered under it. However consumer protection stepped up a gear in October 2004. The regulation of most mortgage sales is now overseen by the Financial Services Authority FSA.

 

The Financial Services Authority FSA has a strict definition of what it calls a regulated mortgage contract. To qualify as a regulated mortgage contract the borrower must be an individual or trustee and the property must be at least occupied by the borrower or a member of his/her immediate family. In April 2007 the regulations were extended to include home reversion plans.

 

 

The definition of mortgage does not cover the following:

 

• buy-to-let mortgages unless the tenant is a member of the borrowers immediate family or the borrower intends to occupy the property at some stage;
  
• second charge loans; and
  
• loans to companies except in the case of trustees.
  

[Suetonius]

Could Lehmans be about to return ?????

 

Lehman UK unit says asset manager plan is too soon - Yahoo! Finance

[Suetonius]

Could be an indication of things to come.....

 

BBC News - Goldman Sachs accused of fraud by US regulator SEC

[Suetonius]

This is from one of the GE threads but should be of interest here too..

 

The Supreme Court - Case details

 

 

What sparked my interest was the case name:

 

Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc (in substitution for Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited) (Respondent)

v

Walker and another (Appellants)

 

 

Respondent name: Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc

 

 

A Previous case:

 

Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd v Walker & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1218 (12 November 2009)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Is this just OLD news though? seen all this before?

 

Not really Jetli, I could be wrong but I think this is the first SPML/SPPL case that directly involves the SPV.

 

Hopefully when this case is concluded and published, it will detail why the SPV is the named respondent.

 

This case could have a significant bearing on future cases involving SPPL and SPML (where the loan/mortgage has been securitised).

 

Which by default may have an impact upon the ability for claims to be brought in the name of SPPL and/or SPML in the future and could also bring into question/doubt cases involving these companies that have previously decided, such as your own.

 

Of course until it is published this is pure speculation and may lead to nothing more than more debate.

[Suetonius]

Exactly ANW, this case will hopefully supply the answers to some of the questions that we have all been asking.

[Suetonius]

Sadly this case won't be as interesting as I had first thought.

 

Business Name

Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc

 

Company Registration Number

5456430

 

Licence Number

0572040

 

Categories

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

 

SPS 05-02 has a consumer credit licence had has since 25 June 2005

 

I incorrectly assumed (always a mistake to make assumptions) that the respondent didn't have a licence....

[Suetonius]

no no no no

 

this case is of extreme importance in many levels,

 

dont dismiss it

 

True but not what I was hoping for...

 

I was hoping that the respondent would be an unauthorised company(in terms of OFT and FSA). As would be the case in a similar situation with SPML SPV's (FSA rather than OFT)

Edited April 17, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

It has at least dismissed one myth that has previously been posted in that the SPV will not bring proceedings (not good news)

 

It should also clarify the matters relating to assignment and the title to sue issue.

 

Also finally determine the correct definition of an amount of credit under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and whether the 1974 Act permits interest to be charged on a sum which is not part of the total amount of credit, but is a charge for credit. This of course is important to everyone and not limited to SPPL etc...

[Suetonius]

Ignore this post, not applicable to SPPL

[Suetonius]

Come on for £250 you would expect them to at least spell securitisation the english way...

 

Not very professional fmann...

 

P.S there is nothing that company or any other for that matter can do for you that you can't do yourself

[Suetonius]

Lol

 

Cheap at twice the price EIE

[Suetonius]

Remember to charge anyone that is late responding to one of your posts.

[Suetonius]

As I understand it the selling of pigeons / doves (aka touting for business) is against the site rules

[Suetonius]

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulates most consumer credit and consumer hire agreements with individuals - which is defined as including sole traders and partnerships of two or three partners.

 

Until 6 April 2008, agreements were excluded from regulation if the amount of credit or hire exceeded £25,000. However, this financial limit was removed for all new credit and hire agreements by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Pre-existing agreements above £25,000 remain outside CCA regulation.

 

There are a number of exemptions from the 1974 Act. These are principally set out in section 16 and the Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989 as amended.

 

In particular, there are exemptions for:

 

• first charge mortgages regulated by the Financial Services Authority
  
• some second charge mortgages, depending upon the nature of the agreement and the identity of the lender
  
• agreements for goods or services where the consumer has to repay the credit within twelve months in four payments or fewer
  
• charge cards and similar agreements where the consumer has to repay the outstanding balance in full at the end of each period
  
• credit union agreements where the APR does not exceed 26.9 per cent
  
• credit agreements offered to a limited group of borrowers where the APR does not exceed a specified 'low cost' rate (set by reference to average base rates)
  
• certain agreements relating to overseas finance.
  

The 2006 Act introduced two new categories of exempt agreement:

 

• lending to high net worth individuals, with net income exceeding £150,000 or net assets exceeding £500,000 and supporting documentation
  

Exempt agreements - The Office of Fair Trading

 

 

I will just find the bit about s.140

[Suetonius]

Here you go

 

You could fall back on s.140

 

http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5FDEE9F6-7EEF-4B26-B53C-A419BC5C8D41/0/OFTUnfairRelationships.pdf

 

"2.8 The unfair relationships provisions apply to credit agreements whether regulated or not, and regardless of the amount of credit extended."

[Suetonius]

However, don't forget....

 

Not sure if Fretful has a mortgage or loan but bad news if it is a mortgage as 140a continues-

 

"The unfair relationships provisions apply to credit agreements whether

regulated or not, and regardless of the amount of credit extended.5 The sole exception is where an agreement is exempt under section 16(6C) of the 1974 Act because it is a regulated mortgage contract under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In all other respects, the

provisions apply to exempt agreements including those which will be

exempt by virtue of section 16A (high net worth borrowers) or section

16B (business lending for more than £25,000) of the 1974 Act.6 "

[Suetonius]

Suetonius you are a right scream, I'd hate to be arguing with you on the doorstep - not a Jehovah are you?

 

No but was forced to go to Sunday School every week as a kid (do they still exist now ?)

[Suetonius]

Suetonius and EiE, apologies for the cagbotting you will no doubt receive. Any forward references to the posts that fmann made have been unapproved.

 

fmann, I have removed reference to your request for people to pm you for information. Regardless of whether it was meant in good faith, fmann, CAG does not encourage users to pm for information where a charge is also being requested.

 

 

No apologies needed, totally agree and understand

[Suetonius]

LD.

So the assigment from LMC to SPML was an equitable assignment yet the Land Registry will say you have to go to court to have the register altered no doubt.

 

A word to the wise Actionnotwords, expressing views of equitable assignment are usually met with verbal abuse, including being accused of being a Shill and Jaw. Not from me though..

[Suetonius]

..and just to add, or clarify my own point, if possible one should forward a Skeleton of your argument or defence, even as a Litigant in Person, to the court at the earliest possibility

 

I could not agree with this statement more.

 

Don't give them any reason/opportunity to ignore or totally disregard your arguments

[Suetonius]

Suetonius, a correction for future reference: JAWs= Jackal lenders At Work, eg SPML/PML/SPPL/LMC

 

I am used to being called names but my position on equitable assignment is clear.

 

If I have misunderstood your previous posts I offer you my unreserved apologies. However, your position as demonstrated by your previous posts did appear to be very clear:

 

The notice to noteholders is from the special purpose vehicle to whom sppl sold all the equitable titles retaining the legal titles and the right to enforce security of its loan pool ie.in English,repossession.

 

Once the mortgage is originated by the lender the" equitable title" is the sold to the spv and administered by capstone under the mortgage administration agreement.

 

In effect the originators/lenders functions appear to cease once the equitable title is sold to the spv and the legal title is held by them on trust for the spv,that is my understanding please correct me if I am wrong. I will wade through the prospectus again to make sure.

 

.From my reading of this of which I of course will stand corrected sppl sold the equitable title of the loan to sps 05-2.

 

As has been said so many times before the loan debt does not disappear with the demise of the originator / lender it passes to the spv who in the case of mortgage loans I believe must issue a s136 LOP Act 1925 notification to the borrower for the legal title to pass and be legally effective.

 

It will be interesting to follow this case and see what new issues it may raise concerning these matters and questions of contract and title to sue ,if the walkers have not received the s136 the spv does not have title to sue! as sppl are still the legal titleholders.

 

What interests me also is whether the Walkers received in the interim period the required s136 notice from sppl transferring the legal title to the loan to the spv.If no such notice has been served the legal titleholders are still sppl.The significance of this being that that the substituted spv has no title to sue as they are only the equitable titleholders.

 

and as posted above:

 

. Bottom line, SPML do not need to notify the borrower that the mortgage was sold because SPML does not transfer LEGAL title, only beneficial title to the mortgage, therefor the land registry does not need to be notified.

 

Your position appeared to be very clear by your previous posts. At least that was until you just posted:

 

Supersleuth's arguments with which I agree,

 

The short point is: that the only persone/entity who has contractual rights that can be asserted against you in the court IS the SPV. The SPV is the only entity at law who is entitled to a possession order (if they prove their case). The SPV is the only entity that has legal standing (locus standi) to bring a cause in action against you because it is the SPV that legally owns your mortgage. No other entity or company has any right to any order/judgment against you.

 

Therefore, when the so called "lender" brings the claim, that lender is NOT in contract with you because they sold the mortgage and therefore they in fact, have NO contractual claim against you.

 

Unless I was very much mistaken SS's argument was that the legal title had passed to the SPV. Whereas you have repeatedly said that unless a notification has been given to the borrower only the equitable title has passed to the SPV.

 

Taking SS's argument and your previous posts into consideration, I am sure you will fully appreciate my confusion. Especially, as your position would appear to be the complete opposite rather than one of agreement with SS.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Suetonius