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

[midge61]

Hi

 

SPML have changed their address to that of Capstone and they are several months late providing their full accounts to Companies House.

 

PwC the administrators of the Lehman bankruptcy held a fire sale of Capstone and "their" mortgage book in Jauary but I haven't been able to find anything more on this. The closing dates for bids was end of JAn and it was estimated that it would be offers of about 50p in the £1.

 

So to my mind SPML are no more and the rest is being sold so what is going to happen to all of us is ayones guess.

[Dangermouse]

Hi all

 

I have been thinking about the information we all need to obtain from the 'false' Claimant regarding the SPV & the transaction details, so that we have them to hand to fight repossession.

 

I seem to recall somewhere that there was an alternative to sending in a SAR, and that was to ask the 'fale' lender to to fully disclose the relevant documents that the borrower feels are material to the case against them?

 

I believe that there has been a discussion somewhere on these threads of asking for disclosure of documents 'pre-action' on the basis that they be material. Given that legal action has already started in most of these cases, surely a request for disclosure can be made of the 'False' Claimant? An application to the courts to suspend/hold the action until the material is disclsoed by the lender. An application to the court could made on the basis that there is liklehood of lender having this information and that this has come to light very recently in evidence put before the Treasury Committee on the bnaking crisis. It might put a bit of backbone into a District Judge to agree that the transaction documentation should be disclosed as part of the repossession proceedings, and therefore halted until complied with.

 

Sorry if this has already come up and been answered. Any legal minds out there?

 

Supersleuth?

 

 

 

Dangermouse

[andrew1]

Could anyone suggest the meaning of a D/D payment reference to a GE loan from a bank statement as : ' GE Money CL ' - anyone any idea if that implies a sucuritisation code?

[Last of the Mohicans]

Quick question: would the DPA 1998 allow an individual to demand all data held on him *and specifically his property* of a company such as Capita Trust Corporate Ltd - the trustee of Midge61's portfolio?

 

I'm thinking in particular of this bit:

 

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

(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.

 

Judging from Midges portfolio doc, these people hold the Title - while SPML just pretend to for the benefit of repo cases?

So a SAR would - or should - throw up a reference?

[Dangermouse]

I was thinking along the following lines

 

 

Pre-Action Disclosure | Technology litigation lawyers & solicitors | Commercial disputes | Evidence

 

Dangermouse

[Last of the Mohicans]

Good old Europe Check this out:

 

Particularly the sub-sections:

 

Misleading actions in commercial practice (page 11)

 

and

 

Misleading omissions in commercial practice (page 12)

 

 

And the word "objective".

 

No lawyer, but that looks open and shut regarding a contract that (quote) witholds ""notice of the assignment to the issuer of the Loans and Collateral Security .. .. will not be given to the Borrowers" and a "mortgage company" that flagrantly attempts to pass itself off as a charge-owner in order to harrass and distress a person in difficulties.

[Last of the Mohicans]

I was thinking along the following lines

 

 

Pre-Action Disclosure | Technology litigation lawyers & solicitors | Commercial disputes | Evidence

 

Dangermouse

 

 

 

that looks spot on Dangermouse

[Dangermouse]

Hey Mohican

 

Well done you, that document seems very clear to me.

 

Dangermouse

[scedminc]

Hi all

 

I have been thinking about the information we all need to obtain from the 'false' Claimant regarding the SPV & the transaction details, so that we have them to hand to fight repossession.

 

I seem to recall somewhere that there was an alternative to sending in a SAR, and that was to ask the 'fale' lender to to fully disclose the relevant documents that the borrower feels are material to the case against them?

 

I believe that there has been a discussion somewhere on these threads of asking for disclosure of documents 'pre-action' on the basis that they be material. Given that legal action has already started in most of these cases, surely a request for disclosure can be made of the 'False' Claimant? An application to the courts to suspend/hold the action until the material is disclsoed by the lender. An application to the court could made on the basis that there is liklehood of lender having this information and that this has come to light very recently in evidence put before the Treasury Committee on the bnaking crisis. It might put a bit of backbone into a District Judge to agree that the transaction documentation should be disclosed as part of the repossession proceedings, and therefore halted until complied with.

 

Sorry if this has already come up and been answered. Any legal minds out there?

 

Supersleuth?

 

 

 

Dangermouse

 

 

Hi Dangermouse,

 

Are you referring to Part 31 of CPR which covers Disclosure and Inspection of Documents. Specific interest may be section 16 which is disclosure before proceedings commence.

 

A link to this is here for reading.

 

PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

[Last of the Mohicans]

Another piece of jigsaw may have been found, but before I say anything - can someone explain (and point to relevant law if possible) under what circumstances a company is allowed to file as dormant for accounts purposes with Companies House?

 

Thanks,

 

Mo

[andrew1]

A company which provides Dormant Accounts can actually be trading. We found this out on the debt Collection Agencies side of the forum. Example: Triton Debt Recovery act like any other DCA sending letters harassing etc but are owned by RBS (who took over the company as part of the Natwest Package) it has staff, phones the lot BUT...they file dormant accounts, Why? Because ALL the costs, purchases and staff are RBS paid. Triton do not have any transactions whatsoever going through their company and therefore Companies house confirm they can register Dormant Company accounts ( I Know I asked). So, just because the company is showing Dormant at CH does not mean they are none trading, but a part of another company picking up the costs. Likewise they could have been trading for a short time before their first set of accounts need filing at companies house which is what 10 months after their full trading year. If the company was Dormant prior to that rather than being a new set-up that too will continue to show as Dormant..

 

Does that help?

[Last of the Mohicans]

A company which provides Dormant Accounts can actually be trading. We found this out on the debt Collection Agencies side of the forum. Example: Triton Debt Recovery act like any other DCA sending letters harassing etc but are owned by RBS (who took over the company as part of the Natwest Package) it has staff, phones the lot BUT...they file dormant accounts, Why? Because ALL the costs, purchases and staff are RBS paid. Triton do not have any transactions whatsoever going through their company and therefore Companies house confirm they can register Dormant Company accounts ( I Know I asked). So, just because the company is showing Dormant at CH does not mean they are none trading, but a part of another company picking up the costs. Likewise they could have been trading for a short time before their first set of accounts need filing at companies house which is what 10 months after their full trading year. If the company was Dormant prior to that rather than being a new set-up that too will continue to show as Dormant..

 

Does that help?

 

 

Yup, thats great, thanks OK... so if a company is "dormant" - but is a part of a Group - eg "Co 1 Ltd" is dormant, and is a sub. of "Co 1 Group PLC" - can you SAR "Co 1 Group PLC" and are they legally bound to send you any relevant data for the whole group, including "Co 1 Ltd" as a subsidiary company?

 

I can find nothing but wooly maybes on this and I've googled extensively. Does anyone have a definitive on this?

 

Cheers

 

Mo

[andrew1]

Yup, thats great, thanks OK... so if a company is "dormant" - but is a part of a Group - eg "Co 1 Ltd" is dormant, and is a sub. of "Co 1 Group PLC" - can you SAR "Co 1 Group PLC" and are they legally bound to send you any relevant data for the whole group, including "Co 1 Ltd" as a subsidiary company?

 

I can find nothing but wooly maybes on this and I've googled extensively. Does anyone have a definitive on this?

 

Cheers

 

Mo

 

What you will need to do is find out who the Data Controller is for Co 1 and you can also search for Data Controller name of Co 1 Group plc too, you'll probably find they are one of the same, however the Information Commissioner keeps a list of Data Controllers : DPR: Data Controller Name [7] which should tell you exactly what you need to know....

[Dangermouse]

Thanks Scedminc

 

That was what I was thinking of.

 

Dangermouse

[supersleuth]

Midge61,

 

First note at page 69 of the Prospectus it states: " Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and the Deed of Charge, each of the Issuer (with the consent of theTrustee) and the Trustee will be entitled to effect such registrations".

 

Also use page 9 schematic which shows that SPML ("sale of mortgage pool" ) SOLD the mortgages to the ISSUER - the "ISSUER" is Southern Pacific Securities 05-03 plc - (note that Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc is now the entity with whom you are in contractual privity and is your lender - and also note that Sourthern Pacific Securities 05-03 plc then created a trust with the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE and put your mortgage into that trust).

 

Also see page 55 "Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement, SPML will sell and the Issuer [i.e. SPS 05-3 plc] will purchase the Loans and Collateral Security comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool for consideration equal to the aggregate of (a) an amount equal to the aggregate Balances of the Loans comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool..." (Note "consideration" is a technical legal word which means: in "consideration" of you [i.e. SPML] giving me [i.e. SPS 05-03 plc] the "consideration" of the legal right and title to the mortgage contracts, I [i.e. SPS 05-03 plc] will in return give you [i.e. SPML] the "consideration" of the total amount of the balances on all the mortgage accounts.)

 

This PROVES that legal title has passed to from SPML to SPS 05-3 plc, and then SPS 05-03 limited then passed legal title to the the Trustee - THE TRUSTEE and SPS 05-03 plc would NOT be entitled to effect the registration if the legal title had not been conveyed to SPS 05-03 plc. SPS 05-03 plc in turn conveyed the legal title to the Trustee under the trust deed between SPS 05-03 plc and the mortgage trustee. THUS LEGAL TITLE WAS CONVEYED by SPML...and the transfer of legal title to SPS 05-03 plc should have been registered!

 

The evidence that you need should highlight to the judge is at page 69: "Neither the Issuer [i.e. SPS 05-3 plc] nor the Trustee currently intend to effect any registration at The Land Registry of England and Wales" That is the breach of s.27(3) and (4) of the Land Registration Act 2002 which MANDATES THAT THEY MUST REGISTER AT THE LAND REGISTERY - at the very least SPS 05-3 plc MUST REGISTER but has not.

 

Also, section 123 makes it a criminal offence to INTENTIONALLY suppress and conceal the transfer from the Land Registry. As they expressly state that they have no intention to register - they have committed the s.123 criminal offence.

 

Your bank statements with reference to SPS 05-03 PROVES that you are paying the ISSUER (i.e. SPS 05-03 plc) and therefore, there can be no doubt that your mortgage is in this securitisaiton mortgage pool

 

Hope this helps speed up the reading and understanding of the Prospectus and points you to the right areas.

 

Supersleuth

Edited March 6, 2009 by supersleuth

[JonCris]

Very well done supersleuth:D Great info

[midge61]

Hi

 

Thanks supersleuth for putting it so well.

[Smarterchick]

Supersleuth, I need to tap your knowledge here, it may help others track these mortgages like you have done with Preferred and Spml..I have asked Swift Advances plc if they securitise and they said they don't. Beacon say Swift keep their assets on Balance sheet..but you say ( and I know who I'd rather trust) that MOST securitise..now if Swift tell us they don't how else can I find out of any shenanigans behind the scenes. They have a Director who worked for Preferred and I don't believe Swift, it all sounds too cosy...can you point us in the right direction? There are references after the D/D's but nothing like the SPML ones, just a row of numbers which google can't link to anything...there must be a way and you seem to be about as near as I'm going to get....any guidance?

[supersleuth]

Hi Smarterchick,

Whoever advance are, they do securitise - they all do. They may keep the assets on balance sheet but that is a smoke and mirrors exercise. What is the row of numbers on the DD? That row of numbers will probably be more revealing than you think.

 

Supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

Fitch Ratings - London - 15 December 2008: Fitch Ratings has today downgraded eight and affirmed five tranches from Eurosail 06 - 3 NC Plc, an RMBS transaction containing loans originated by Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited and Southern Pacific Personal Loan Limited. The ratings are listed below

 

EXCEPT THEY ARE'NT!!! BECAUSE WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE LINK IT SAYS THIS STORY IS NOT AVAILABLE! I"M BEGINNING TO SMELL A RAT! Information in the public domain being pulled? mmmm, how convenient.

[enoughisenough]

Supersleuth.

 

Bowing to your greater knowledge can you PM me and I'll get straight back. I think I've found something very interesting But don't want to put it out until I've got a second opinion.

 

Ta EIE

[JonCris]

enoughisenough would you mind sharing with me by PM also:)

[supersleuth]

enoughisenough (great name - it is a spot on sentiment of us all) - please do PM me your find

 

Smarterchick, there's not enough to go on at the moment- what is the full name of Beacon? How are they connected with you?

 

Have you looked up the company names on the Companies House Website and also checked them up on the FSA Register (see FSA Website). You may get clues there.

 

The numbers you sent aren't very revealing although the letter "P" could be of some interest - back in 1995 Swift Advances plc used to be called Purbeck House Securities Limited. They have been called Swift Advances plc since May 2004. When was your loan originated?

 

Have you checked your buildings insurance policy? What companies are listed as having an interest in your blding ins?

 

Need to do a bit more initial footwork to suss this one out.

[Smarterchick]

enoughisenough (great name - it is a spot on sentiment of us all) - please do PM me your find

 

Smarterchick, there's not enough to go on at the moment- what is the full name of Beacon? How are they connected with you?

 

Have you looked up the company names on the Companies House Website and also checked them up on the FSA Register (see FSA Website). You may get clues there.

 

The numbers you sent aren't very revealing although the letter "P" could be of some interest - back in 1995 Swift Advances plc used to be called Purbeck House Securities Limited. They have been called Swift Advances plc since May 2004. When was your loan originated?

 

Have you checked your buildings insurance policy? What companies are listed as having an interest in your blding ins?

 

Need to do a bit more initial footwork to suss this one out.

 

 

The 'P' I believe to be the first of 2 letters in their system to identify the account holder. I've seen others accountnumbers like this which are identified with these 1st 2 letters of their names. As for Beacon try this : Xx xx 2007

and this:

http://www.beaconmortgagepackaging.co.uk/

 

(thanks to pkelly)

[JonCris]

enough read your find. Shows what a bunch of conniving crooks there are in the finance industry.......any change since 2006?