Hi Angnnig, You can charge them the same contractual rate of interest that they charged you. The contractual rate of interest is compound interest and usually compounds 12 times per year. You don't make it clear, but the 8% figure you refer to, is that the statutory interest rate you are referring to? If so, that is charged simple interest. You might want to fully research and study interest rates to determine your calculations for an accurate reflection of just how much they have screwed you for. Attached below is a useful guide explaining interest rates. Whilst you are told the APR interest rates, the bankers and corporate financiers always use the effective interest rate when working out the return on your loan because it more accurately reflects how much they actually got from you. Don't be put off, you can work it out and understand it if you are motivated and determined. Hope this helps EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE EIR_Tucker.pdf

Hi there diddled, Yes I would like you to go on. Please could you look at my thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/262954-expose-your-lender-horror.html#post2969717 The conflicts of interests issue and corrupt practices are things that would be of great interest if you could help with the research to expose the issues.

Here's the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/262768-eviction-date-today-i.html Also, have you had an eviction notice yet? Note in the advice in thread link posted above - that you can make an application to set aside an eviction. Also, Mrs Hobbit is right - if you have a solicitor that is doing the sale conveyance for you - see the advice about this in the thread link posted above. Plus, ask your conveyance solicitor why he has NOT GOT the deeds yet - it is a simple task. As your solicitor to tell you the REASON they have given for their failure to give him the deeds. Hope this helps Let us know how things are going so for you as many other people could offer you advice

Miel, Sounds like you don't have an independent and impartial judge - which is a breach of your Article 6 right to a fair trial. Well that's the law as it stands, but unfortunately (for a large majority of us), we are subjected to these venal judges who are conflicted and use their judicial office for their own financial gains. There is another thread I was reading earlier today which was much along the same lines as yourself -i.e., house sold but mortgage lender took possession rather than let her sell it (although there was no mention of potential judicial corruption in her post). But there was some good advice there which could help. I will find the thread and post it up for you. Was the judge a Deputy District Judge by any chance? Also, was the possession order an immediate possession order or was it a suspended possession order?

Hi JonCris, 100% agree with you. The judiciary and the lawyers must be held to account for their deeds against the ordinary public. Somebody, somewhere (of course not any of our institutions or authorities) may be working on that objective right now.

Hey Gallahad, great post - you're so funny:p

The absolute truth written with breath taking eloquence.

tbern123 - I don't need you to keep asserting who you are not. In fact, I don't care who you are either. Hence, you don't need to keep posting your assertions as to who you are not. Your identity is boring and irrelevant to the discussion.

Read the many threads of people who have had their homes repossessed. You may find that in most cases, as you rightly observe, it is the "minus fees" that is the problem. The borrower's equity is swallowed up in paying the many, many fees and costs levied on the borrower for the sale. Thus, most people's equity is swallowed up with these fees and in a lot of cases, those fees push the account to an alleged shortfall. Hence it is not only those borrowers who are in negative equity that suffer from this extortion, it is the many borrowers who do have equity in their homes. Again, read the many threads where repossessed people testify to this fact. BTW - another method of stealing people's equity is evident in the Horsham Properties v Heath case. Where the mortgagee sells the property cheap to a company at undervalue and then that purchaser sells on at a profit. There is no end to the strategies these people employ to steal your wealth.

BTW, the cosy applecart does need to be rocked. The whole point of the statutory provisions of unenforceability was to DETER. If no lender ever suffers the enforcement of the deterrent, the whole lot of them will continue to shaft the consumer - which is what Parliament was trying to STOP!

Again you're right. Consequences to the economy. So the judiciary neglect to consider that making families homeless has huge consequences to the tax-payer. Every family that is made homeless becomes a burden to the local authority who must house them, usually, being homeless makes it unsustainable to hold down a job, so the people become dependant on the state - which means, state benefits, housing benefits etc., etc., But so long as the bankers get ignore to their statutory duties when entering into CCA's, and as long as the consumer cannot enforce the protections parliament bequeathed the consumer - the economy (read the City, because that's all that's left of our "economy") will be fine. Never mind that the tax-payer is burdened with the aftermath of ensuring the City boys get all the wealth out of the economy. At what point will the tax-payer be unable to sustain the social costs of these repossessions? Don't you think that that is a valid social question that the courts should consider? But more pertinent, don't you think that if Parliament said the contract is unenforceable - the court has no lawful right to defeat the intention of Parliament? They are supposed to give effect to the intention of Parliament when interpreting statutes. Just because the Judge prefer to take wealth from the consumer to give to the City that does not justify a judge defeating Parliament and negating democracy. Incidentally, the economy, which is the City that asset strips the companies that employ people and make those people unemployed too. And once unemployed, the next step is repossessing their homes. Take Cadbury's as a recent example. When will the City ever create jobs rather than destroy everything. Destroy jobs, destroy homes and families. The only other elements of our economy is the defence industry and the public employer, civil servants etc. Sycophantic reverence for the City has gone too far. It's time to rebalance the scales of justice - sadly, all too lacking for the family in this country. As for the Walker decision from the Supreme court - yes, I wait with baited breath to see if they've taken the opportunity to turn the tide on these injustices. Would like to think that they'd uphold Parliament's intention but don't have any confidence in our judicial system at all. The judiciary haven't given any of us any reasons to have confidence in their version of "justice". We can only have confidence that the judiciary will give the bankers EVERYTHING.

You've got it in one. Repossession is far more profitable than lending to the customer for 25 years. That's why they force people into arrears. Firstly they charge interest at rates they know is untenable for the borrower to sustain. They know how to force the borrower into arrears because they know exactly the fixed income that the borrower declared on their application. Secondly, they know that once they've tripped the borrower up on its first missed payment - from there they can add all the extortionate fees that are really profitable. If you manage to re-mortgage, then they can stuff you for an ERC in the tens of thousands. So it's good business for them to force you into "alleged" arrears. But then the next mortgage company will soon have you in the same boat a few years down the line anyway, plus they've also screw you for all the extensive costs in remortgaging as well. Maximised profits. Why should they lend for 25 years? It's much more profitable to force you into arrears. If you haven't been able to remortgage, the next profit centre is just as lucrative - taking your home. Then they can steal all the equity from your home. And, even after taking all your equity, there's more. Fees, fees and more fees for the sale of your property and then they get to have you in their clutches for the contrived "shortfall", all of which attracts compound interest. So then they leave you alone for a few years while you financially recover and then, once you recover, they miraculously appear. With their compounded interest on the alleged shortfall over say 6 or 12 years and they get to hound you for another small fortune. Read the many threads on this topic regarding repossessions that took place in the 1990's. Oh boy, it's soooo much more profitable to repossess than it is to let the borrower have the loan for 25 years. You will never be allowed to get out of their clutches even after they've taken everything you've got. Until our blind, deaf and dumb moron judges understand the abuse and frauds perpetrated on the back of their "rights" over a mortgaged person, Bankruptcy or Death is the only way out. Opps, even your death may not be the way out because then these shysters will hound your family. They have no scruples they just want ALL YOU MONEY - THAT IS EACH AND EVERY PENNY YOU EVER GET - FOREVER AND EVER!

Hi ANW, This case highlights the criminal extortion perpetrated by the securitisation structure. Take a logical look at the figures. A loan of £17,500 taken out in April 2005 on a 15 year term. 4.5 years into the loan (i.e. Nov 2009), the loan has (allegedly) accrued £40K in arrears. Therefore, adding arrears and the principal amount borrowed, the Walkers (allegedly) owe SPPL £57,500. Wow, within 4.5 years a 17.5K loan turns into a whopping £57,500 DEBT! As you rightly point out - the claimant is concerned that the Walkers would have a windfall. That "windfall" would be £17.5K. But SPPL would have a "windfall" of MORE THAN THREE TIMES that amount! And in any event, I have no doubt that within that 4.5 years, the Walkers had already made payment way in excess of £17.5K so SPPL lost NOTHING from an agreement that was declared by court before Judge Halbert as unenforceable. The whole point of the CCA rendering agreements unenforceable was to act as a deterrent to unscrupulous lenders - to DETER them from screwing over the consumer. But alas, our courts don't worry about the consumer being screwed over, our courts are more concerned with ASSISTING these criminals in their frauds! From a social justice perspective, the judge had to make a choice to either prevent SPPL from being unable to screw over all its other customers or send the Walkers into bankruptcy. The judge clearly decided that impoverishing the consumer and letting SPPL continue to screw over all the rest of us consumers was social justice. Moreover, the courts do not care that through our democratic process Parliament intended that there be deterrents against unscrupulous lenders - the courts do not care to ENFORCE those deterrents against unscrupulous lenders. The upshot is that AT LAW our justice system encourages, assists and supports the fraudulent exploitation of the British consumer. The courts continue to "interpret" the statutes in the light most favourable to the lender and to defeat the intentions of our parliamentary democracy. I would like to know how may judges in our judiciary have favourable "loans" from these companies. As for the SPPL's contention in the judgment that the Walkers would have a windfall of £40K that is a nonsence. The Walkers only received £17.5K and off the back of that miserable sum - they loose ALL the wealth - absolutely EVERYTHING. Well done SPPL - you and the courts and judges absolutely disgust me! Is this JUSTICE? Does this give you confidence is our so-called "justice" system? Mummery (the judge) GOT IT WRONG in his judgment. DJ Halbert's judgment is the most faithful application of the rule of law I have ever read. Halbert's judgment is unimpeachable. Mummery does his slight-of-hand at para. 43. He says, s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 was a discretionary provision. Mummery is wrong. Read C of A on the Wilson case. The CofA made it clear in the Wilson case that s.127(3) was NOT A DISCRETIONARY PROVISION. But Mummery is a law unto himself and he fudges it (with the connivance of the others). Mummery reverses Halbert on the allegation that Halbert erred in the exercise of his discretion on s.127(3). It was IMPOSSIBLE for Halbert to err in the exercise of his discretion on s.127(3) BECAUSE there IS NO DISCRETION on the application of s.127(3). The rule of law is DEAD in this country. Corruption rules. In short as our judiciary apply the so-called "law" at the moment - if you take out a loan with any of these fraudsters no matter how small the loan is - the courts will give that lender EVERYTHING YOU OWN and send you and your family to the park bench! Can't wait to hear the poppycock from our Supreme Court on this case. No doubt they'll deliver Supreme Injustice! The consumer will always be subjected to the frauds of this companies until the courts ENFORCE the consumer protections parliament intended we have and positively DETER these fraudsters from perpetrating their crimes against us. At the moment, crime pays for these companies, and our courts make sure those crimes are handsomely paid for by us.

Observe that the CAG site team concur with Suetonius and Andrew1. Andrew1 has just started posting on this thread but he/she warns us that it is perilous to use that line of defence because if you do, you will loose your home. Quite frankly, the lender's are going to take your home whatever defence you run. So if you've got the mettle to stand up to these criminals, run every and all potential defences of your choosing. It's shocking that one member of the CAG site team rallies in to support the new poster to this thread, namely Andrew1 (and as a natural consequence, Suetonius) to impress upon us that we must not attempt any line of defence that would expose what is really going on. In view of the excellent pioneering and ground breaking work that the consumer action group achieved in the field of bank account charges, it is disappointing that the consumer action group doesn't want any of us to disturb or lawfully challenge the lawfulness of the securitisation structure. Litigation with these financial giants is always going to be the David and Goliath battle, but one of us, somewhere, sometime may be the one that throws the proverbial stone. Good luck to all of you impressive geniune caggers that have, and do have the guts to stand-up for your rights. One of you may break through just like the original CAG consumers did in the days of the bank charges fiasco. For me, it seems that members of the CAG site team have forgot the fundamental reason for providing this forum - to help consumers defend themselves against these extortioners. Supersleuth

Hi Crapstone, Maybe Suetonious posted the simplified version as a kindness taking his lead from JebediahSpringfield. You see, JebediahSpringfield had commented on his posts that he would simplify his/her arguments for my simple brain.... or maybe, in the words of Shakespere methinketh he doth protesteth too much

Hello Sue, Thanks for your extensive post. The last words you say are the most important. To quote you: PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT ANY POSTS MADE BY ANYONE ON FACE VALUE. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO VERIFY ANY OPINIONS YOURSELF. That's the only sound advice in your post. Kind regards Supersleuth

Thanks Patrickq1, That is indeed the ex turpi causa defence. Of course, in the context of lenders and borrowers, the borrowers are totally innocent of any wrongdoing under the LRA 2002. The transgression of a positive law (i.e. s.27) and the criminal act of the lenders (s.123) are exclusively the transgressions of the banks and the SPVs. The Stephen Moore v Stone Rolls House of Lords case expands on how the defence is applied here. Of course, the courts will probably enter into the usual liguistic acrobats to avoid holding the banks to abide by the law in this country, but nonetheless we should put them through the pain of doing so because, there may just be one judge out their who does abide by his/her judicial oath and does uphold the rule of law who dismisses the banks claims against the borrower. Supersleuth

Hi ANW, I agree. It is sad that people hinder rather than help. I am disappointed to learn that Suetonius only entered the debate because somebody asked him to, and sad that he succeeded in stopping people from asserting the potential defences. There is no hard and fast answer to this conundrum even though the LRA 2002 is straight forward and overwhelming. Plus, there is the inference that can be drawn from the fact that the banks will never reveal the transaction documents which suggests (on the balance of probabilities) that the argument LRA 2002 is correct. What is more disappointing is that Suetonius never offered any alternative suggestion as to any possible defences. So how did it help anyone when he shuts down one of the few defences that could potentially prevail sometime somewhere? What harm would it do if some borrowers tried to use the defence even if they just put it in as an alternative to other defences such as CCA, UTCCR, s.2 LPA (MP) 1989 etc.,? There will be a break through sometime, somewhere. Somebody will shame the judiciary into abiding by their judicial oath and re-instate the rule of law in this country. Until then, it will be more injustice. But in the words of EIE, just gotta keep the faith in the meantime. Keep up the good work, Superslueth

Hi ANW and tifo, The bank would like you to believe that it acts as trustee on behalf of the SPV. But think about it: on the day you bought your home i.e., the day that you gave the completion monies to your seller, did your seller become a trustee to you? It probably took 2 - 3 months before you were registered at the Land Register - so during that time, did you consider yourself to be a beneficiary of your home that you'd already paid for. Or did you consider that you took legal title on the day you gave the seller the purchase money? In this circumstance, the law holds that as between the contracting parties, legal title passes immediately. Legal title has "attached" to the new legal owner - which was you - once you paid the completion monies. This is all logical and common sense application of law isn't it? The law does not deem your seller to be your trustee, nor does the law deem you, as the new legal owner to be a mere beneficiary. Your legal title ATTACHES to you immediately as soon as you paid the purchase price. You are the person who is "entitled to be registered" at the land registry - because your legal title is ATTACHED to YOU. This is the same for the banks and the SPV. As between them as contracting parties, the legal title passes from the bank to the SPV immediately that the SPV paid the completion monies. At that point the legal title ATTACHES to the SPV and the SPV is "entitled to be registered" at the land registry. Where all the prospectuses declare that the SPV is entitled to be registed at the Land Registry, they can only have such an entitlement if they were transferred the legal title. You see, there is not entitlement to register an equitable title at the land register. If the transfer was merely an equitable sale, the SPV would not be entitled to register its interest at the land registery. There is no a shadow of doubt in my mind that at law, the sale to the SPV was a sale of the legal title. The reason why this is important as a potential defence against repossession is because the bank relies on its unlawful entry as the registered proprietor when the bank knows that it has sold its legal rights and title to another. The bank knows that it has suppressed and concealed the SPV from being registered at the Land Registry contrary to the LRA 2002 s.27 and s.123 and knows that the Land Register is incorrect. S.123 is a criminal offence and a claimant cannot rely on its criminal and unlawful conduct (its registration at LR) to found its claim against you. It is called the illegality defence and more commonly known in the legal world in its latin tag as ex turpi causa. So then you think that the SPV will come clean and comply with s.27 like has recently been seen in the House of Lords Walker case. Well no, the SPV's don't want to come forward wholesale to correct and accurately reflect the SPVs as the real legal owners. The reason they don't want to register are many but two will suffice to demonstrate - firstly, they don't want have to comply with FSA or OFT regulations (I know the banks don't anyway) and more importantly, their tax structure. If they registered, as s.27 says they must, then they couldn't pretend to be equitable owners (which they are not as evident from the Walker case), and they would not be able to engage in their tax evasion structure. So it does matter. You do have a defence against your bank because your bank does not own the legal rights under your contract and has no legal right to bring litigation against you. It has no legal right to possess your home and no legal right to ask the court to give them an order for possession of your home. The bank must rely on the Land Register and its commission of a criminal offence rendering that register inaccurate and incomplete and in accordance with the ex turpi causa defence, the court 'cannot and will not assist a claimant that must rely on its own illegality to ground its cause of action' There are two House of Lords cases that support the contentions herein: first there is Westdeutsche Girozentral v Islington, 1996 for the propostion that the Bank is not the trustee of the SPV see the sections headed "retention of title" and "separation of title" and Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls 2009 (or maybe 2008) which sets out the ex causa turpi doctrine. Tifo, your contract is not with the bank - the bank sold its legal title under your contract to the SPV. That legal title has attached to the SPV and therefore your bank cannot at law (if the law is upheld) lay any claim against you. You will notice that in Mr J Strap's posts he talks about "perfection". Well once a legal title has ATTAHCED to the SPV as it has, the SPV should PERFECT its title. Pefection is achieved by registering at the Land Registry...and LRA s.27 mandates that an assignee MUST PERFECT ITS ATTACHED LEGAL TITLE by registering. It is the wilful non-compliance with s.27 together with the commission of a s.123 crime and the gross criminal abuse of the registration gap that lets these criminal banks get away with their extortions. The law is not being upheld against these criminals and so, they continue to get away with their criminal activity. There are more reasons why the SPV's are grossly detrimental to consumers as the legal owners of their mortgage contract - particularly in the excessive administration costs of the securitisation structure which the consumer pays for - through the bloody nose! But this reply is long enough as it is for the moment and that could be another topic. Good luck to you all against these criminals... Supersleuth

Doh! Mr Simpson, how right you are! You're right. I've never had much faith in the CAB anyway, but I know that a lot of people do trust them (sometimes rightly and sometime wrongly) But, quite honestly, advice from 'theotherside', whilst accurately describing himself as being on the other side would still cause some people to misplace their trust in his 'advice'. And yes, you're right again, honest impartial advice from a large pool of decent independent balanced people who have real past experience of particular issues on this site is by far, the best source of good wholesome advice. CAB eat your heart out on the other side! Very best of luck with the litigation Homer...

Hi ANW, It does appear that there are many touts who still want to persist in the equitable v legal argument. There's little point. Those who argue equitable are those who want to protect the financial interests of their banking chums. The banks don't want the ordinary public to know and understand just how we are all being shafted and worse, having our homes illegally and criminally repossessed. And so they send their touts into these forums to cast doubt and leave us with no alternative but to roll over and give everything we've got to the banks. They'll even take the drippings off the end of your nose. So there's little point in entertaining these posters who just want to divert people from the truth. I've recently spotted on another blog site, that the greatest protagonist for the equitable sale on this forum, our much revered Suetonius, only entered the debate on this thread because somebody asked him! Yes, somebody asked him to create doubt on the validity of the arguments and so when he joined this thread, he joined with the specific objective to deflate and direct borrowers away from even attempting to assert the potential defences. When somebody posts merely because somebody asked them - you've got to wonder - who asked them to scupper the potential defences and why would they acceed to the request. When both sides have fully vented the arguments, on the legal v equitable anyway, it is surprising that the equitable camp still want to argue. I don't. I trust that people are intelligent enough to follow the arguments on both sides and make up their own minds and I respect people enough to respect which argument they personally judge to be correct. And it is a personal judgment call for each of us as the law on this subject is in flux and there is no definitive correct answer from any court judgment. That will be the case until the issue is properly put before a court and the court decide the answer. For me, the bankers' non-compliance with LRA 2002 s.27 and their public admissions that they criminally intend to conceal their sale from the Land Registry contrary to LRA s.123 is, in the words of one District Judge recently "a very grave one". But whether these criminals will ever be held to comply with the law is another matter. It seems so far, that they are above the law. Supersleuth

Hi Campari2 I know that Bustthematrix has already responded to you on this question, but I have recently noticed the following which proves that BTM is right. See Treasury Select Committee where Ms Titcomb of the FSA says at para. 9: 9. In October 2009, we fined GMAC £2.8 million for failing to treat their customers fairly. We also secured redress of up to £7.7 million (plus interest) for over 46,000 mortgage customers. 16,712 of the 46,000 customers involved in the redress programme remain live in the GMAC-RFC balance sheet and securitised accounts as at 31 March 2010. The loans made to 429 of the 46,000 customers involved in the redress programme were sold to Bradford & Bingley. So if 16,712 of the GMAC customers remain "live" with GMAC, it means that the other 29,288 GMAC customers are with other lenders BUT they are still part of the redress programme. E.g., Ms Titcomb specifically identifies 429 of those as being with B&B. Here's the link to Ms Titcomb's written reply testimony to the Treasury Select Committee. House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence Hope it helps Supersleuth

Goodness, this poster works for the CAB!!! - Having read the attitude of this poster to those suffering at the hand of extortion charges, please god, if ever I have to get advice from the CAB - please don't let this bank-lover be the one to give me advice. For sure the advice will be to my detriment! I wonder if others in the CAB also display the same attitude as this poster...

Hi Newstarter, It's a long story, but if you want to get to grips with the saga, check out this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/170607-spml-london-mortgage-company.html

Hi Mr Strap I thought you said you rested your case. So rest. And enjoy the peace. What does it matter to you what my point is? You've already proved your case to yourself and I see little point in offering you any alternative, especially because, you don't want to answer any questions to substantiate your own points. So just be happy and rest in contentment with your own conclusions. Peace Supersleuth