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

[enoughisenough]

Nice work dotty...seems you didn't spend Xmas peeling tangerines...

 

I hadn't thought of skinning jackals as a Christmas tradition, but it can certainly become a New Year's Resolution...

[littledotty27]

Nice work dotty...seems you didn't spend Xmas peeling tangerines...

 

 

I hadn't thought of skinning jackals as a Christmas tradition, but it can certainly become a New Year's Resolution...

 

Only skinning the bitter tangerines over xmas i'm afraid EIE

[enoughisenough]

Consumer Direct

[not another b----- letter]

Found this on FSA register of regulated companies:

 

SPML able to hold and control clients money.

 

PML able to hold and control clients money.

 

Capstone unable to hold client money.

 

So if the first two sink how can they collect payments?.

[midge61]

well done littledotty

 

Lets hope that what vc said has come from your actions. Will be very interesting to see what happens now.

[Suetonius]

You donot seem to quiz the actual intention of some caggers or their posts. Some are here to discredit those who are genuine on this thread. Beware the Jackals.

 

It is obvious that you consider me to a "Jackal" ITBG?

 

However, take a moment to ask yourself one question.

 

If I was an employee of any of the Lehman subsidiaries, why would I try to discourage people from using arguments that HAVE NOT and more importantly CONTINUE NOT to work Court ?

 

I would have more respect for you, if you actually made any accusation to me directly.

[ryde]

WAr's Comin'

 

copyright Lord Cagger...

Wars here

kill 'em all

no mercy

c.L.C. (master of the unexpected)

couldn't resist it

[enoughisenough]

Hi NABL

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/factsheets/pdfs/client_money_flowchart.pdf

 

 

Any mileage in this? Thoughts?

[ZillaK]

..some really good recent posts on here.. thanks!!

 

..will look into everything and see what I can do..

 

littledotty - is it possible for you to pm me please - with a breakdown of the steps taken in complaining etc.. so that I can do the same where poss...

 

..likewise with anyone else who has suggestions..

 

I have done a little research into some case law re: transfers of charges etc and will start a new thread on it.. there's a couple of key points that must be attended to in order to progress anything in this area..

 

..but it may be worthwhile arranging for a personal inspection of your land registry documents (form PIC) & also request that you wish to inspect copies of the applications/supporting documentation relating to the charges in question, and any variations to the charge & supporting documents etc..

 

ZillaK

[enoughisenough]

I did actually do this back In April and the registrar thought that what was there was very odd. She didn't specify and I didn't push as I was in too much of a hurry.

 

However you can bet your last that the paperwork was as shoddy as hell. I've said this many times before. They were so busy pushing the loans and printing the funny money THEY FORGOT, or simply did not bother to get the paperwork right.

[ZillaK]

..intentional sleight of hand imo..

 

..almost all of the limited companies involved have t/a names that are similar to or exactly like each other.. easily slipped by unsuspecting and busy administrators because all seems in order when details are only inspected/confirmed on the surface..

 

..nobody in their right mind would consider that this may have occurred or may still be occurring across the board.. it's almost unthinkable.. hence the 'beauty' of their fraud..

 

..the devil is in the detail as they say..

 

ZillaK

[I'm the bad guy?]

EiE, all

 

I posted a sample CIB complaint, I think last November. Just adjust it to your lender-SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL.

 

As confirmed by Lil'dooty, from CIB & CH, YOU all have a great deal of evidence now and cause for complaint. SEND IT ALL, AND KEEP SENDING IT to CIB & CH.

 

The lenders are drowning, just keep their heads under. What I cannot understand, is how only a few on this thread have actually filed their online CIB complaint? Especially, anyone with LMC or SPPL, as confirmed from CIB; NO DIRECTORS-NO REPOS.

 

I think the DOUGAL post(look him up) has massive significance, especially anyone with LMC or SPPL- its FRAUD under Fraud Act 2006(posted earlier).

 

YOU ALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT, the lenders are relying on you not to act-presently.

 

1. LMC & SPPL NO directors/NO accounts/ NO locus standi.

2. SPML/PML- NO 08 & 09 accounts/2007 accounts not-compliant with s.503 Companies Act 2006.(1985 CA repealed in full).

3. Ms Amany Attia, sole director of SPML/PML under prosecution for late filing of statutory accounts. Also, directly employed by Lehman Bros Ltd(in administration)

4. Major descrepencies between SPML 2006 & 2007 accounts, especially on sale of LMC.

5..add...

 

DONOT worry if you cannot provide, exact statutes of Companies Act etc., THE COMPLAINT AS A CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS ENOUGH(you're not expected to have expert knowledge as a layman). Both CIB & CH are under a Parliamentary duty/charter to use the powers they have under the Companies & Insolvency Acts, TO ENSURE THE CH REGISTER IS CORRECT and that Companies are solvent in trading. CIB & CH are NOT like the Land Registry(no powers) or toothless as the FSA. Especially CH, where there are regulations which MUST be complied with by companies. For example, the CH system immediately sends a notice out to a company if a sole director resigns/terminated, and the company has 28 days to respond or it will be struck off. CH are prosecuting Attia- they are duty bound to do so. SO WHEN SHE IS CONVICTED, SHE WILL BE STRUCK OFF, THEN SPML/PML WILL HAVE NO DIRECTORS AND THUS NO LOCUS STANDI.

 

JUST TO ADD YOU DONOT NEED TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH EITHER THE CIB OR CH COMPLAINT, IT CAN BE MADE TO THEM AS ANY CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. REPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE LENDERS, SO IT CAN BE MADE BY YOU, FRIENDS OR FAMILY ETC. THEY ARE ALL VALID- PASS IT FORWARD.

 

 

..its in your hands, bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

Edited January 16, 2010 by I'm the bad guy?

[enoughisenough]

That's the ITBG we all Lurve...!

 

Keep it up.

 

[ryde]

That's the ITBG we all Lurve...!

 

Keep it up.

 

 

Second that.

[ryde]

Has anyone noticed that the day the spv eurosail posted the notice to noteholders that sppl was imminently insolvent 15/12/09 ,the whole group of companies spml/pml/preferred group/ resetfan/capstone etc all moved their registers to the sail address?the connection must be of significance somewhere.(preparation for transfer of legal titles,investigation,all registers now in one place??)

[ZillaK]

h8them posted this link on the securitisation thread.. definitely worth a read..

 

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

 

ZillaK

 

ps - quoted from the above link..

 

142 Another legal issue arises here. Strictly speaking the claimant should be the SPV, however, the administrator bank will make the claim in its own name. However, at law, the bank has no locus standi to bring the claim in its own name without informing the court that it is claiming in a representative capacity. The court therefore erroneously assumes the bank's legal standing and is wilfully mislead by the legal ruse to conceal the SPV. At law, the bank has no legal right to bring the claim in its own name and no legal right to obtain a possession order against the borrower.

Edited January 16, 2010 by ZillaK
adding ps..

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

I think there has been seem great work done by folks here.

 

As a few have said and I totally agree - let us concentrate on ending the misery of this lot by our collective efforts.

 

I have just observed something that I think is of great importance regarding the issues that are being debated here - briefly outlined below:

 

1.London Mortgage Company Limited is NOT Southern Pacific Morgage Limited Trading As London Mortgage Company or more commonly written as Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited T/A London Mortgage Company.

 

2.London Mortgage Company Limited is an individual legal entity(company) in its own right.

 

3.Whereas London Mortgage Company is a trading guise for Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited.

 

4.In conclusion,these are two seperate legal entities.

 

5.Personally,I think that the Fraud Act 2006 has immense implications here including imprisonment because a non existing entity - limited company is putting forward its rights by its legal rep in a court of law i.e. to repossess or gain charging orders etc where in fact that limited company does not exist AT ALL may I add and its former directors and agents etc.would be fully aware of this.

 

6.Also,the most disturbing part is - where in the hell do our monthly mortgage repayments end up?

 

 

7.Finally,If anyone has questions,please feel free to ask.

 

Also,if anyone disagrees with the content of my post in part or full, please let me know backed up with your reason(s) and evidence etc. so we can discuss it further in a sensible and civil manner and to the benefit of all Caggers.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Keep up the fight!

 

Cheers,

 

Nightmare4banks

Edited January 17, 2010 by Nightmare4banks

[enoughisenough]

The Fraud Act is an interesting angle. However there have been numerous posts on this issue and the consensus was that it might apply but would not actually result in any conviction. That said I think they need a shoe up their bum and this fits the bill perfectly. It reallydoes not matter whether a successful prosecution is brought. What matters is their houses are raided at 5 in the morning by the fraud squad so their kids feel what our kids have to feel. Maybe then they will start to behave ethically and lawfully

 

For those who want Dougals fraud act thread I will dig it out tomorrow

[enoughisenough]

Zillak

 

hate to point this out but virtually everyone who posts on this thread has read it. Moreover there has been extensive debate as to whether the arguments expressed would stand in court minus the sale document. I suggest you read fully and comprehensively through this thread as onerous as this may be. It is worth the effort.

[ZillaK]

I agree in that the fraud angle is present.. not just at lr or upon the consumer but also the manner in which they are moving assets along the chain, and at the times that they do so, leads me to suspect that there is significant tax evasion too..

 

ZillaK

[ZillaK]

@ EIE

 

..what in particular are you referring to in your last post? just so I know what you mean...

 

ZillaK

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

EIE,in reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1. I totally agree.Do you really think we will get anyone of this lot imprisoned? Sorry to be a party pooper but doubt it very much.

 

2.However,on a brighter and more positive note I think this will have a head on impact regarding our mortgages,loans and charging orders as a result because they were obtained by abusing the court process.

 

3.Once a company goesto the wall - what entity then owns your mortgage/loan/charging order amount?

 

4.Although,not in this country but in the USA as probably some of you are already aware several foreclosures(similar process to repossession) have been halted by judges in several because the enitity bringing the proceedings could not prove ownership/holding the title.

 

5.If you would go and read the details of the notices issued by Eurosail dated 15-12-2009 it clearly has stated that(regarding holding the title) and these are the exact words:

 

"The imminent insolvency of SPPL will have various implications,such implications including but limited to,issues relating to the holding of the title to the Mortgages relating to each loan comprised in the Mortgage Pool and the Collection Account."

 

There are several of these notices and here is the link to one of them:

 

Eurosail 2006-3 NC plc - Notice to Noteholders

 

6.Personally,I think this will make it much easier to save a home that is being reposssed and will also have implications on folks who have already been repossesed and have charging orders issued against them.

 

MODS PLEASE DELETE THIS POST AS IT HAS BEEN POSTED IN ERROR AND INCOMPLETE - CHEERS!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Nightmare4banks

[Crapstone]

Little Dotty ..get an updated SAR off them to see what's going on. They are all pretty keen to lose payments and class them as not sent and defaulted upon. It happened to me until I found out they HAD received the payments that they denied. I was called a liar and told that I hadn't sent them anything ..the SAR proved they were the liars and they tried to cover it up.

 

Sue is one of the good guys and doesn't need to post poems to get their point across.

 

You either sit and do nothing or you act against them. If you lose .you go again and again. Throw everything you have at them but the primary cause is to keep your home.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

EIE,in reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1. I totally agree.Do you really think we will get anyone of this lot imprisoned? Sorry to be a party pooper but doubt it very much.

 

2.However,on a brighter and more positive note I think this will have a head on impact regarding our mortgages,loans and charging orders as a result because they were obtained by abusing the court process.

 

3.Once a company goes to the wall - what entity then owns your mortgage/loan/charging order amount?

 

4.Although,not in this country but in the USA as probably some of you are already aware several foreclosures(similar process to repossession) have been halted by judges in several states because the enitity bringing the proceedings could not prove ownership/holding the title.

 

5.If you would go and read the details of the notices issued by Eurosail dated 15-12-2009 it clearly has stated that(regarding holding the title) and these are the exact words:

 

"The imminent insolvency of SPPL will have various implications,such implications including but limited to,issues relating to the holding of the title to the Mortgages relating to each loan comprised in the Mortgage Pool and the Collection Account."

 

There are several of these notices and here is the link to one of them:

 

Eurosail 2006-3 NC plc - Notice to Noteholders

 

6.Personally,I think this will make it much easier to save homes in repo situations and will also have implications on folks who have already been repossesed and have charging orders issued against them and to able to sue for compensation too.

 

Anyway,just my 2p's worth!

 

I hope this helps.

 

Keep up the fight!

 

Cheers,

 

Nightmare4banks

Edited January 17, 2010 by Nightmare4banks

[enoughisenough]

ZillaK

 

your presence and contributions are much appreciated. However Carmel Butler's contribution to the TSC was endlessly discussed debated and argued over. In short it boils down to this. They sold it lock stock and barrell. Or they split it up (equitable). Until you can force disclosure our corrupt courts will always favour the equitable argument as it sides with the monied interest. If you need further clarification I'm happy to provide such. No offence intended but we've spent a year debating what you posted and right or wrong it just cannot win in a court at this moment in time. Please exhaust yourself and read the whole thread. It might take a week but is worth the ride...