Sub Prime Mortgages Call For Evidence Before The Treasury Select Committee

[Dougal16T]

Good morning

 

You don't get a better chance than this at 'putting the problems right.!!

 

My 100% support, sending mine off tonight and I will be prepared to go as a witness.

 

Regards to all

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all

 

Almost finished my submission....

 

Just a quick thought, I note that in post 44 here it was mentioned trying to get a Solicitor to tackle a fraud case - this is impossible simply because the majority of solicitors are civil practitioners only, those that are criminal practitioners are almost always defence specialists.

 

The only way to take a criminal case forwards is to go to the police - as an ex p..c. myself I can tell you that if your evidence is in order then the Police WILL take it on - if the officer you speak to or a civilian counter clerk says they will not, then remember this, 'an officer (including civilian staff) who neglects his duty will be liable to proceedings under the Police Act, and may be disciplined by the Chief Constable, and are also subject to investigation by the IPCC.' (Independent Police Complaints Commission.)

 

Now I know that certain 'loan/finance companies' would have great problems with the police investigating their actions - I draw your attention (again!) to my old friend the Fraud Act 2006 - [also incorporating the Fraud Act 1968]

This is where the offences being committed are clearly set out, and it makes good reading (......)

 

ALMOST ALL OF THESE SUB-PRIME COMPANIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATES HAVE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO COMMIT OFFENCES UNDER THIS ACT.

 

All it needs is one complaint to the Police and the rest, as they say, may be history.

 

I hope I can help, if you would like me to - you can always PM me if you wish.

 

Kind regards as always

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all

 

Just to clarify what my friend said in post number 54:

 

In British and British-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt Anton Pillar order) is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This prevents destruction of incriminating evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements. The order is named for the case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55 [1] in 1976, although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J in EMI Limited v Pandit [1975] 1 All ER 418 in 1975. They are now known as search orders in England and Wales.

 

Because such an order is essentially unfair to the accused party, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in the Anton Piller case:

 

There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the respondent,

The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and

There must be clear evidence that the respondents have in their possession incriminating documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an inter partes application can be made.

 

In the UK, it has been reported that approximately 500 Anton Piller orders were made per year between 1975 and 1980. During the 1990s, this rate had dropped tenfold. Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997[2]. A search order under this act "does not affect any right of a person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty".

 

But it is vital to complain to the Police - see new thread as before...

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all ....

 

 

Just sent my submission.....despite the responses from the committee!!

 

(I managed 1500 words....)

 

 

Why am I not surprised at the replies from the committee posted above.....?

 

Surely we didn't expect something to be done......did we??

 

 

Best wishes to you all

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

 

Now that is an interesting thought.......

 

I'll ponder this in depth, meanwhile let's keep up the pressure....!

 

I have actually sent, before the deadline two separate submissions to the Committee.....both different, but both about our friends 'the quick bird which sleeps on the wing.'

 

No, I have not been at the bottle..!....just cautious about snoopers...

 

Kind regards

 

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

I had a telephone conversation today with the adjudicator from the FOS who is dealing with my complaint against unlawful sub prime penalty charges and costs. He told me that the companies are quite within their rights to charge £50 per month for being in arrears, and are entitled to charge what they like. In his words; "They lent you the money; you have to pay it back!"

But, just a minute......I didn't borrow it from the SPV that is now demanding it, I borrowed it from the original lender who has since washed his hands of it!

I asked the adjudicator whether he watched the televisation of the Treasury Select Committee discussion about sub prime. He was totally blank. I doubt if he even has any idea what sub prime means.

I find it demoralising and outrageous that these FOS people, who are meant to be unbiased, are judging on something that they obviously know nothing about. What chance are we ever likely to have?

 

Good morning all,

 

No chance, I am sorry to say - all the time the FOS are funded by the Banking system!

 

Sorry - feeling a bit frustrated with these people, who are supposed to help and protect us!!

 

All the very best as always,

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Morning One and all

 

I'm all for debate and I sympathise with the argument that essentially the FOS are biased.

 

No-one should place all their eggs in one basket. However some caggers have had some success using the ombudsman and if you can get an ombudsman ruling that the the charges should be refunded and they shouldn't apply any more charges this has good swinging power should they decide to try for a possession order. Hell knows anything from the FOS that says they shouldn't be applying the charges might even keep them out of court. The long game is important - at all costs keep the roof over your head.

 

Evening all,

I take the point, and I do agree that the more 'ammo' that one has the better, even if it is not quite the 'nuclear weapon' we all hope it will be!!

 

As always best wishes to all

 

Dougal