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

[enoughisenough]

Apologies for my absence and lack of contributions. My Internet is down and there's only so much you can post on a phone. Keep up the sterling work guys. I reckon capstone are seriously rattled! Good. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

[brassed-off-2]

I agree Crapstone, a dedicated thread away from prying eyes!!

 

It can be done, look at the UK26 V EXPERIAN...they had to go behind closed doors due to the implications of experian trolling the thread, using UKS quotes and evidence in the court room!!

 

Like you say...it needs to keep on track!!

b-o-2

[brassed-off-2]

[

Apologies for my absence and lack of contributions. My Internet is down and there's only so much you can post on a phone. Keep up the sterling work guys. I reckon capstone are seriously rattled! Good. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

 

 

EIE

This is no time for the pc gremlins:p

your contribution is greatly received even if it is only in shorthand, text and slang version.. hope the gremlins go soon!

 

Crapstone does have an interesting point though, dont you think?

 

b-o-2

[keithybat]

Well done catchy have got to ring them on monday to pay my mortgage. Will ask the same questions and see what answers I get. I will also ring the FSA first to ask their advice on the fact SPML may go into bankruptcy and what's their take on the situation. What worries me about all this is if Capstone also go into insolvency what about all the records of payments of mortgages? There was some concern about this when Lehman Brothers first went down. I will post their reply on Monday!

[ryde]

GR you havent been exiled from these shores and denied food and shelter for 200miles yet then?!(extract from spartacus now theres a good name for a cagger!!may adopt it!)

Agree totally with your comments about capstone.As previously posted I am involved in litigation with pml and all the instruction to solicitors is from capstone as though they are acting as their attorneys .This has been pointed out to the court who have done nothing as usual and not even questioned it.

As BONA has pointed out he had a forced sale with gmac, instead of having to wait all these years for the fsa to act it is outrageous that the courts were not given the same guidelines or used some discretion to make judgements in these repo cases,how can you compensate people for being forced out of their homes and the distress that creates.

All lenders as far as I know charge varying monthly arrears fees,fees for field arrears councillors who you are forced to see etc driving the homeowner in arrears closer to the brink when the fees charged could be going towards the actual arrears .Does the fsa findings set the precedent where the charging of these fees by all lenders is now obsolete and there is a right to claim back all the fees charged by them in the past because they were all doing it.Woolwich for example £40 a month arrears fee,late collection fee for all the time you are in arrears thats £40 less towards your arrears every month,if the fsa have made these findings against gmac they should apply across the board to all lenders we should then have a refund similar to the bank charges fiasco type situation.

One really important point can the fsa findings and the unfair arrears charges now be used as a viable defence in Court.

 

catchy keithybatCan you ask capstone to give you a personal direct contact address ,name and number ofyour mortgage lender with whom you have your mortgage contract because you wish to discuss you contract privately with them or words to that effect,you are unable to contact them over this because all you keep getting are capstone staff and your contract is not with capstone but with spml or pml etc and they no longer seem to exist and you have not been notified that your contract has been transferred to capstone.

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

You can't be called Spartacus.

 

I'M SPARTACUS!

[enoughisenough]

The UTCCR's give effect to an EU directive. All courts including the law lords must ensure that decisions are made with a view to upholding this directive. In fact the courts are mandated by virtue of an ec ruling to assess the compatibility of the contract with the UTCCR's. That the courts fail to do this is subject to remedial action in the European Court of Justice. This is not some flight of fancy. Myself and JonCris had a pretty interesting discussion on this very point back in the summer but the thread died. I'll try to dig it out.

[Bona]

would be very interested in that thread if you can find it

[bertrum]

I agree with you Dangermouse, maybe if we all got together,something could be done.

Im awaiting my call from ITN on monday,maybe we should all contact ITN,the bigger the story the better.

SPML are quite good at intimidating customers,lets see how they like being intimidated from the press.

If anyone is interested in airing there side of things to the news let me know & I will pass on your details to Chris the specialist editor at ITN.

My wife and I have had no end of problems with Capstone. Our problems arose after my wifes Mum died which meant her taking time off work with depression. We requested temorary interest only payments but were ignored, no end of harrassing phone at work (bearing in mind they knew our circumstances and we were dealing with bereavement) this was August 2008.

Exactly a year later (first anniversary of death, my wife in a bad way due to this) Capstone/SPML take us to court for repossesion. when we were in court and speaking to solicitor acting for Capstone, we mentioned that we had sent to the Ombudsman a list of complaints and harassment/nuisance phone calls and when we said they are cowboys, she remarked 'yes, no comment. Capstone are asking for a repossession but I'm asking for something else as they're request is unfair......Yes you can cotact us for ITN news.

A question, How come you can't get in contact with SPML, the actual mortgage lender but get Capstone instead. We now record our phonecalls with them which gives us proof of our converations. They don't like this. We have got a big file on this company! Have to go to reply to their grovelling letter which is ''Sorry, but tough'' after the year of harrassment. Our reply will be ''No, it's not good enough'' They have now put a CCJ on our file due to their incompetence which has not helped us get away from them.

[brassed-off-2]

SC

 

Not seen you in a while!!

How is your battle proceeding??

b02

[enoughisenough]

Hi Bona!

 

here's the link.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/209359-eu-law-consumer-protections.html

[gustavius rex]

GR you havent been exiled from these shores and denied food and shelter for 200miles yet then?!(extract from spartacus now theres a good name for a cagger!!may adopt it!)

Agree totally with your comments about capstone.As previously posted I am involved in litigation with pml and all the instruction to solicitors is from capstone as though they are acting as their attorneys .This has been pointed out to the court who have done nothing as usual and not even questioned it.

As BONA has pointed out he had a forced sale with gmac, instead of having to wait all these years for the fsa to act it is outrageous that the courts were not given the same guidelines or used some discretion to make judgements in these repo cases,how can you compensate people for being forced out of their homes and the distress that creates.

All lenders as far as I know charge varying monthly arrears fees,fees for field arrears councillors who you are forced to see etc driving the homeowner in arrears closer to the brink when the fees charged could be going towards the actual arrears .Does the fsa findings set the precedent where the charging of these fees by all lenders is now obsolete and there is a right to claim back all the fees charged by them in the past because they were all doing it.Woolwich for example £40 a month arrears fee,late collection fee for all the time you are in arrears thats £40 less towards your arrears every month,if the fsa have made these findings against gmac they should apply across the board to all lenders we should then have a refund similar to the bank charges fiasco type situation.

One really important point can the fsa findings and the unfair arrears charges now be used as a viable defence in Court.

 

 

Now Ryde, exiled is something waiting in the curtains and proberbly will be imposed once l'm done with this post!

 

l have found both grounds and reasons to have our mortgages and charges seriously questioned!!

 

FSA Regulation 5(1) states:

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Director general of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc (2001) UKHL 52

 

Per Lord Bingham:

 

''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no CONCEALED pitfalls or traps....'' Further: fair dealing requires that a supplier shold not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's NECESSITY, INDIGENCE, LACK OF EXPERIENCE, UNFAMILIARITY with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any other factor listed in or ANALOGOUS to those listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations...''

 

There's a lot more, of course, but these are the most important and relevant pieces right now. l think that we can all, with one single voice, state that we did not have a clue what was really going to happen with our mortgages once we had signed them. No-one knew diddly dat about securitisation and the terrible risks involved for the mortgagoor. We were all mislead to believe we had mortgages signed and secured for xxx number of years, under normal mortgage contract terms and conditions and not used as speculative investment securities in a derivatives environment with promised returns within 6 years and risks that neither lenders nor investors fully understood. lf that is not unfair and if that is not underhanded trading, then what on earth is.

 

This should be sufficient to instigate a primary attack on these sub-prime lenders and not only our bunch, but, all the others as well.

 

Gustavius.,

[ryde]

This is the GMAC Final Notice. Part two is a list of their offences. The shirt off my back is yours if you can show me which one of these does not apply to Capstone Mortgage Services.

 

Quote:

FINAL NOTICE

 

GMAC-RFC Limited 5 Arlington Square, Downshire Way, Bracknell RG12 1WA 28 October 2009

 

TAKE NOTICE: the Financial Services Authority of 25 the North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS (“the FSA”) gives you final notice about a requirement to pay a financial penalty:

 

1. THE PENALTY

 

1.1. The FSA gave GMAC-RFC Limited (“GMAC”/“the firm”) a Decision Notice on 26 October 2009 which notified the firm that pursuant to section 206 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“the Act”), the FSA had decided to impose a financial penalty of £2.8 million on the firm. This penalty is imposed for breaches of Principle 3 (Management and control) and Principle 6 (Customers’ interests) of the Principles for Businesses (“the Principles”) and Rules 12.4.1 R and 13.3.1 R in the Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (“MCOB”) in the period between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008

 

This and more was posted earlier by eie and others.

 

I must admit I never knew of this act which needs to be looked at in depth because this must contain all the reasons and answers for everyones complaints and this act should be quoted in any complaint to the fsa.If this act is law any breaches of the act or mcob must be viable defences for any repo actions in court by the lender on excessive administrative charges alone.Surely the fsa have set a precedent in enforcing these rules they cannot apply them to one and ignore all the others.Will look into this in depth.(what figure do they set, if any, as an acceptable arrears administration fee ,thats the real question, because anything in excess should be reclaimable)

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[verycatchy7939]

ryde you wish is my command , i will ask crapstone for SPML contact details and i will report back. WTF i enjoy causing havoc at crapstone.

I not a legal eagle like some of you but god i can give it to them good style and make them uncomfortable on the phone.

 

All this forum and the recording(Copy) have been given to my local MP this am at his surgery- worth a try guys

[verycatchy7939]

oh where is sue when we need her

[enoughisenough]

Are the sub - primers running scared? Seems they're petrified of any ruling that would say unfair relationship.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Five-year block on repossession

[scedminc]

SC

 

Not seen you in a while!!

How is your battle proceeding??

b02

 

Hi bo2,

 

I assume you were talking to me.

 

I have been around on and off but more often off due to time issues. I'm trying to get back now as of course I am still very much on a mission to destroy this fools.

 

I have been very much in the thick of it offline to fight off an eviction date which was set for very soon. After asking difficult questions and applying pressure to their solicitors with the help a well respected cagger (you know who you are) they finally decided to cancel the warrant.

 

Time now for us all the build a case and destroy them once and for all before they ruin too many more lives.

 

Sced

[ryde]

BBC NEWS | Business | Five-year block on repossession originally posted by EIE.

this is a very interesting post and well worth a look as I was not aware loans of this size were governed by the consumer credit act which I thought had a financial ceiling its also an excellent defence as there has been a settlement on this basis.Its getting back to what GR has been saying,dare I say it,is the tide turning at last?

 

catchy

can you ask them for a name, that is the person in charge of spml, because you have a private important enquiry that concerns your mortgage contract and you cannot contact anybody directly from spmlthanks in advance.

Edited October 31, 2009 by ryde

[verycatchy7939]

catchy

can you ask them for a name, that is the person in charge of spml, because you have a private important enquiry that concerns your mortgage contract and you cannot contact anybody directly from spmlthanks in advance.

 

 

i so will so do mate

[Bona]

Thanks for the Link very helpful have been going on about this to GMAC I think we may be getting some where

[gustavius rex]

Are the sub - primers running scared? Seems they're petrified of any ruling that would say unfair relationship.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Five-year block on repossession

 

 

EiE and Ryde,

 

This is what l've been looking for, i.e. a firm of solicitors who understands the complicated relationship re. unfair contract practices. Let's get together now and contact these guys and maybe we can get this show on the road.

 

GR

[enoughisenough]

Fine G-R

 

But before we trip over ourselves we might want to be wary about any Claims Management Company. Just Google Cartel Client Review, the claims firm in this case, and you'll see what I mean.

 

Also this.

 

Transfer scams hit the hard-up and desperate - Loans & Credit, Money - The Independent

[eagleforms]

Mmmmm....... Not so clever to use them e-i-e. But it seemsto me that there are a lot of very well informed Caggers who could orchestrate a group claim against these jokers.You don't have to have a legal qualification to know about the law and to conduct a very well contructed action against them. I am also sure that there a a great numbers of ordinary, s...t upon caggers who would support it. How about it?

[gustavius rex]

Fine G-R

 

But before we trip over ourselves we might want to be wary about any Claims Management Company. Just Google Cartal Client Review, the claims firm in this case, and you'll see what I mean.

 

Also this.

 

Transfer scams hit the hard-up and desperate - Loans & Credit, Money - The Independent

 

 

l see what you mean, but, in this case, it is far to big for anyone, to even contemplate, to get involved in with a £500.00 up-front fee. This is not a case for some tacky debt management company, but, for a firm of specialised lawyers only. Should someone take it on, then the potential fees could be very substantial, particularily as it could end with billions in claims. My biggest problem is the politicos who are as fraudulent and corrupt as the very companies they regulate and that goes for the whole financial industry and debt collection/enforcement industry jointly. And, for us it couldn't come at a worse time, with so many of our honourable ladies and gentlemen being tossed out of the HoP looking for new jobs in the very places they assisted in making a shameful recovery and profits, i.e. our banks.

GR

[midge61]

Not sure if this has already been posted

 

Market News