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

[actionnotwords]

Originally Posted by tifo

can it therefore come under any 'unfair' laws as the actions can be detrimental to the consumer who is one half (significantly less powerful) of the contract?

 

Now this is more to the heart of the matter and should be the actual issue.. title to sue has not worked....

 

What is required is for someone with a CCA regulated agreement to go to court and use s.140, as the burden of proof is then put upon the lender.

 

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

 

 

This in turn (if at the appropriate court) could give a precedent that could be used by non CCA borrowers.

 

This is something that may have occurred in Walker but we still have to wait and see.

originally posted by Suetonius

 

This is an important post from the securitization thread and I concur fully with this observation,this is where a viable defence will lie, I believe the same will apply to mortgages regulated by the FSA.

It is vital that this is fully explored can all parties who have given such energies and intelligent research to the title to sue debate please explore this together in the common good?

I am sure I speak for everyone here in this plea.

Supersleuth,Suetonius please?

[tbern123]

Good Morning ANW

 

My posts about s.140 were incorrect.. The only exception to s.140 is a regulated mortgage agreement.. So any mortgage before 31 Oct 2004 (introduction of mortgage regulation) is unregulated... Thus s.140 applies..

 

So anyone who has had a mortgage for more than 6 years (pre 31 Oct 04) can use it...

 

And as you have previously posted in the prospectus it is suggested that securitisation restricts the lenders/ 3rd party administrators ablilty to convert from repayment to interest only etc, this could be used...

 

As you also say, s.140 places the burden of proof on the lender.. They have to prove it is not unfair..

[actionnotwords]

And as you have previously posted in the prospectus it is suggested that securitisation restricts the lenders/ 3rd party administrators ablilty to convert from repayment to interest only etc, this could be used...

quote tbern

 

So this is the way forward,the effects of securitization create an unfair relationship between the contracting parties.

1)The borrower is not made aware from the outset that their loan has been securitised,in fact the spv states that even though the loan has been sold to them they do not intend to perfect the sale by the issue of the statutory s136 notice.

2)The reasons being Land registry fees,tax,the spv is in most cases not licenced by the FSA so any agreement would be unenforceable if a full transfer took place.

3)The spv controls the terms of the mortgage through its contractural arrangements with its administrator,specifically the administrator despite the pre action protocols and FSA guidelines is prohibited in changing the terms of the mortgage in any way that would alter for the worst the regular cash stream to the spv.

4)The originator plays no part in the administration of the mortgage only its enforcement which is in fact executed in its name by the administrator.

5)A question would be who actually receives the charges levied on a defaulting account and as purportedly published in the originators scale of charges.I would guess the administrator who it would appear has actually no contractural agreements with the originator,or none that anyone has ever seen.

6)The originator states in its original contract with the borrower that it is regulated by the FSA,it also states it subscribes to FSA guidelines,a borrower could reasonably expect that in the situation of unforseen hardship the guidelines and pre action protocols would be employed.7.

 

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

7.1

The court takes the view that starting a possession claim is usually a last resort and that such a claim should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Discussion between the parties may include options such as:

(1)extending the term of the mortgage;

(2)changing the type of a mortgage;

(3)deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

(4)capitalising the arrears

None of these options are available and this protocol cannot be observed due to the effects of securitization and contractural agreements between spv and administrator,the relationship between the parties is thus unfair as unbeknown to the borrower a third party has been added without their consent or knowlegde to the original contract which significantly changes the relationship of the contracting parties.

They may as well in fact write a proviso:s7 does not apply in the case of securitized mortgages.

Edited June 5, 2010 by actionnotwords

[supersleuth]

What interests me also is whether the Walkers received in the interim period the required s136 notice from sppl transferring the legal title to the loan to the spv.If no such notice has been served the legal titleholders are still sppl.The significance of this being that that the substituted spv has no title to sue as they are only the equitable titleholders.

This could entail to the embarssment of the spv the resubstitution of parties with sppl being restored as the claimant.

 

1. The Walkers fell into arrears, which already top £40,000. They risk losing their home in the possession proceedings taken by SPPL. According to SPPL's Statement of Estimated Costs lodged in this court a grand total of £100,021 in legal costs is also claimed against the Walkers if SPPL win the appeal.
   
2. For their part SPPL said that, if the judge was right, the Walkers would stand to gain a windfall of over £40,000 and the clearance of the second charge on the Property. SPPL would be faced with the prospect of cases of irrecoverable loans made to other borrowers
   
3. .As extracted from the original appeal court decision made in favour of sppl the costs of these proceedings for the loser will be astronomical for the sake of a £17500 second mortgage,for the Walkers probably certain bankruptcy.
   

 

 

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.

Edited June 5, 2010 by supersleuth

[actionnotwords]

Supesleuth

I think we are still waiting the latest appeal on the Walker case which is taking some time so we can only pray,however as you say if the applecart of general practices is upset the courts err in the favour of the lender if they can find enough excuse.A borrower windfall or liability escape is to be avoided at all costs as the floodgates will open and the comfortable set up will be rocked with consequences to the economy.(the courts viewpoint)

Look at the recent decision with the banks,outrageous.

[supersleuth]

Supesleuth

I think we are still waiting the latest appeal on the Walker case which is taking some time so we can only pray,however as you say if the applecart of general practices is upset the courts err in the favour of the lender if they can find enough excuse.A borrower windfall or liability escape is to be avoided at all costs as the floodgates will open and the comfortable set up will be rocked with consequences to the economy.(the courts viewpoint)

Look at the recent decision with the banks,outrageous.

 

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.

Edited June 5, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

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!

[tbern123]

And as you have previously posted in the prospectus it is suggested that securitisation restricts the lenders/ 3rd party administrators ablilty to convert from repayment to interest only etc, this could be used...

quote tbern

 

So this is the way forward,the effects of securitization create an unfair relationship between the contracting parties.

1)The borrower is not made aware from the outset that their loan has been securitised,in fact the spv states that even though the loan has been sold to them they do not intend to perfect the sale by the issue of the statutory s136 notice.

2)The reasons being Land registry fees,tax,the spv is in most cases not licenced by the FSA so any agreement would be unenforceable if a full transfer took place.

3)The spv controls the terms of the mortgage through its contractural arrangements with its administrator,specifically the administrator despite the pre action protocols and FSA guidelines is prohibited in changing the terms of the mortgage in any way that would alter for the worst the regular cash stream to the spv.

4)The originator plays no part in the administration of the mortgage only its enforcement which is in fact executed in its name by the administrator.

5)A question would be who actually receives the charges levied on a defaulting account and as purportedly published in the originators scale of charges.I would guess the administrator who it would appear has actually no contractural agreements with the originator,or none that anyone has ever seen.

6)The originator states in its original contract with the borrower that it is regulated by the FSA,it also states it subscribes to FSA guidelines,a borrower could reasonably expect that in the situation of unforseen hardship the guidelines and pre action protocols would be employed.7.

 

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

7.1

The court takes the view that starting a possession claim is usually a last resort and that such a claim should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Discussion between the parties may include options such as:

(1)extending the term of the mortgage;

(2)changing the type of a mortgage;

(3)deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

(4)capitalising the arrears

None of these options are available and this protocol cannot be observed due to the effects of securitization and contractural agreements between spv and administrator,the relationship between the parties is thus unfair as unbeknown to the borrower a third party has been added without their consent or knowlegde to the original contract which significantly changes the relationship of the contracting parties.

They may as well in fact write a proviso:s7 does not apply in the case of securitized mortgages.

 

To strengthen an argument with regard to unfairness, I would play a little game of chess. I would write four letters to the lender and in each one individually ask

 

(1)extending the term of the mortgage;

(2)changing the type of a mortgage;

(3)deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

(4)capitalising the arrears

 

You want them to respond to each request, thus demonstrating to the court your willingness and the unwillingness of the lender.

 

Even putting securitisation to one side, you could then demonstrate for whatever reason the lender is not complying with 7.1. I wouldn't limit it, just to securitisation though.

 

There is also the matter to make sure that the amount of reported arrears is correct.

Edited June 5, 2010 by tbern123

[tifo]

I would write four letters to the lender and in each one individually ask

 

(1)extending the term of the mortgage;

(2)changing the type of a mortgage;

(3)deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

(4)capitalising the arrears

 

I've done 3 and 4 .... and don't need 1 and 2.

 

And am in the process of reclaiming arrears charges and fees (as you know).

 

But as a test, looks ok.

[caro]

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.

 

Just to clarify, I am not saying that Suetonius is right or wrong, but IMHO he is a knowledgeable poster and his posts merit consideration.

 

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.

 

Andrew1 may not have posted on this thread before but he has been on CAG a long time, and if you took the time to read his threads and other posts, you would see that he has had a number of battles in court, some of which he's won, and some he hasn't. He has learned a lot along the way. I have the utmost respect for him and his opinion.

 

Try asking Cabot what they think of him.

 

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

 

After over 4 years on this site I most certainly have not forgotten the fundamental reason for providing this forum. It's why I'm still here.

 

What I have learned however that it is essential to explore all avenues and all arguments in order to ensure that when you get to court you are as prepared as you can be.

 

The last thing that people who are facing multi-track cases need is to go to court unprepared and face massive costs making the situation worse.

[tbern123]

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

 

Surely, it can be said that a way in which to help consumers defend themselves is to identify and highlight flaws in suggested defences so that these flaws are identified here (and possibily overcome) rather than in a Court, at which time it will be to late...

 

Surely, it can also be said that it is equally important not to use the wrong defence as it is to use the right one ?

[Crapstone]

All 4 of those were denied, but that was in 03, and before the problems became widespread. A time that we thought is was just us, as the internet returned nothing.

 

Every persons situation is different and that has to take priority..regardless of the securitisation. Some judges don't even understand a budget sheet so what chance would you have arguing on the higher topic?

 

The only thing looked at is affordability. Unless you really want to go so far that you can't look back. If you are reading this then you've already got to the arrears stage!

 

It seems that some people want their entire mortage debt wiped out ..that isn't going to happen.

[JonCris]

It's time to confront the Judiciary, in their own courts if need be, by telling them that you will not tolerate their re-writing of the law & their attempts to defeat Parliaments Will.

 

It is not nor has it ever been their right to make law. Many libel findings are just one example of the judiciary making law.

 

At the outset they need to be told in no uncertain manner that you will appeal any decision which seeks to make or re-write the law.

 

The judges demand & expect respect in their courts well IMHO that cuts both ways. To many of them are riding roughshod over the rights of LiP's & this has only become widely known as a direct result of the bank charges campaign & the internet where a lot of ordinary people have come together to share their experiences.

 

As a result we have seen that there is a pattern in that the Courts as a whole DO NOT administer justice to the ordinary citizen, its been exposed by the internet as an appalling lottery. In addition they find ways (some of them ridiculous) to maintain the status quo. For example they'll argue about a word such as the meaning of 'should' against the meaning of 'will'. This is despite knowing only to well what what the Will of Parliament was. In otherwords they rely on the drafting to defeat the upstart LiP

Edited June 6, 2010 by JonCris

[caro]

It's time to confront the Judiciary, in their own courts if need be, by telling them that you will not tolerate their re-writing of the law & their attempts to defeat Parliaments Will.

 

Fine words in an ideal world JC. In the real world the people who have to face the courts without the luxury of legal representation do not have the resources at their disposal to do this. By resources I mean the money for legal counsel or in-depth legal knowledge. LIPs can't even access legal databases or some case law to help them in their fights putting them at an unfair disadvantage.

 

It is not nor has it ever been their right to make law. Many libel findings are just one example of the judiciary making law.

 

At the outset they need to be told in no uncertain manner that you will appeal any decision which seeks to make or re-write the law.

 

As I said resources are an issue. In the real world if this is done and the victim loses again they may find themselves in a worse predicament than before if costs are awarded against them.

Look at the OFT v Banks case. The banks lost that case TWICE, and IMHO rightly so, and despite not having leave to appeal, they appealed and won.

 

The judges demand & expect respect in their courts well IMHO that cuts both ways. To many of them are riding roughshod over the rights of LiP's & this has only become widely known as a direct result of the bank charges campaign & the internet where a lot of ordinary people have come together to share their experiences.

 

I'm sorry to say that in too many cases LIPs have gone to court quoting law which they haven't necessarily researched adequately enabling astute barristers and solicitors for the other side to rip them to pieces in court.

I wonder how many judges have seen this again and again and let it colour their judgment against those that followed.

 

As a result we have seen that there is a pattern in that the Courts as a whole DO NOT administer justice to the ordinary citizen, its been exposed by the internet as an appalling lottery. In addition they find ways (some of them ridiculous) to maintain the status quo. For example they'll argue about a word such as the meaning of 'should' against the meaning of 'will'. This is despite knowing only to well what what the Will of Parliament was. In otherwords they rely on the drafting to defeat the upstart LiP

 

Totally agree JC, and sorry to have been negative about your post. This is not because I'm unsupportive of anyone on CAG. It's simply that my time on CAG has opened my eyes to the real world, and sometimes the best we can hope for is damage limitation.

 

This doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't keep fighting on or give in to these bullies. It just means that we need to make sure that casualties are kept to a minimum, and we need to consider damage limitation for individuals too.

 

I'm very sorry if people see this as unsupportive or patronising. It's not. I don't know the answers but I do know this isn't an ideal world and we have to box clever.

 

Companies that abuse their customers should be put out of business IMHO. I don't have faith in the OFT, FSA or FOS, but I do think that if enough people complain enough to those regulatory and/or professional bodies that have the power to take action it will help everyone, and when it comes to court the LIP will have evidence of the underhand tactics being employed and stand more chance of winning.

[supersleuth]

It's time to confront the Judiciary, in their own courts if need be, by telling them that you will not tolerate their re-writing of the law & their attempts to defeat Parliaments Will.

 

It is not nor has it ever been their right to make law. Many libel findings are just one example of the judiciary making law.

 

At the outset they need to be told in no uncertain manner that you will appeal any decision which seeks to make or re-write the law.

 

The judges demand & expect respect in their courts well IMHO that cuts both ways. To many of them are riding roughshod over the rights of LiP's & this has only become widely known as a direct result of the bank charges campaign & the internet where a lot of ordinary people have come together to share their experiences.

 

As a result we have seen that there is a pattern in that the Courts as a whole DO NOT administer justice to the ordinary citizen, its been exposed by the internet as an appalling lottery. In addition they find ways (some of them ridiculous) to maintain the status quo. For example they'll argue about a word such as the meaning of 'should' against the meaning of 'will'. This is despite knowing only to well what what the Will of Parliament was. In otherwords they rely on the drafting to defeat the upstart LiP

 

The absolute truth written with breath taking eloquence.

[IS IT ME?]

well all I can say at this time and it is because of court action in the only court to which we will get a 'fair hearing' that I am unable to say more as you are more than aware the 'other side read these pages.

All I can say is that post 6410 is right on the ball!

As this protocol was done after all this mess and was done by 'parliament' and not some legal eagle for the dark side.

Look what is happening to All the sub prime lenders Gmac, Kennsington all fined and that will not be the last.

Because of this site people are finding ways to argue their case's better and the judges are lost and will never change until they are made to, never asking any questions themselves but taking the word of the lenders as being Law and that's how they have got away with it.

But as a case in the EU courts it is a whole different ball game so lets see what happens now.

[actionnotwords]

To strengthen an argument with regard to unfairness, I would play a little game of chess. I would write four letters to the lender and in each one individually ask

 

(1)extending the term of the mortgage;

(2)changing the type of a mortgage;

(3)deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

(4)capitalising the arrears

 

You want them to respond to each request, thus demonstrating to the court your willingness and the unwillingness of the lender.

 

Even putting securitisation to one side, you could then demonstrate for whatever reason the lender is not complying with 7.1. I wouldn't limit it, just to securitisation though.

 

There is also the matter to make sure that the amount of reported arrears is correct.

 

An excellent idea.

If a challenge to these lenders could be mounted on this basis,the pitfalls of securitization properly exposed to the detriment of the consumer,change may be forced at the very least,this would also not be seen as an attempted liability escape which is how the courts appear to view most defences of this nature.

If only people who have got into arrears could restructure their repayments to actually reduce outgoings their position might be more easily recoverable.

Arrears would not have occurred originally,deliberate manufacture by this shower excepted , had it not been for unforseen hardship and consequent reduction in income,to actually maintain the current rate of repayment plus a large premium on top usually stretches people past breaking point.

If these lenders were forced into accepting these protocols as an alternative to an unenforceable agreement this would be a great victory.

[actionnotwords]

well all I can say at this time and it is because of court action in the only court to which we will get a 'fair hearing' that I am unable to say more as you are more than aware the 'other side read these pages.

All I can say is that post 6410 is right on the ball!

As this protocol was done after all this mess and was done by 'parliament' and not some legal eagle for the dark side.

Look what is happening to All the sub prime lenders Gmac, Kennsington all fined and that will not be the last.

Because of this site people are finding ways to argue their case's better and the judges are lost and will never change until they are made to, never asking any questions themselves but taking the word of the lenders as being Law and that's how they have got away with it.

But as a case in the EU courts it is a whole different ball game so lets see what happens now.

 

You are perfectly correct here, is it me?

Well pointed out,the protocols were actually drawn up after any of the prospectuses so were never countered or envisaged by the spv's "legal eagles" who certainly attempted to close many other loopholes or reason for dispute.

I am certain this is fertile ground and could be written as standard into any defence once the appropriate legislation in support is applied as evidence.

[Crapstone]

It's not even always a reduction in income...don't forget that they lose payments and apply insurance. Then after months of them taking more than they were entitled to, they then put more pressure and and can't see why you have cancelled the payments. All an attempt from the outset to make you sell or face eviction. Still fighting them so can't get too involved.

[JonCris]

Totally agree JC, and sorry to have been negative about your post. This is not because I'm unsupportive of anyone on CAG. It's simply that my time on CAG has opened my eyes to the real world, and sometimes the best we can hope for is damage limitation.

 

This doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't keep fighting on or give in to these bullies. It just means that we need to make sure that casualties are kept to a minimum, and we need to consider damage limitation for individuals too.

 

I'm very sorry if people see this as unsupportive or patronising. It's not. I don't know the answers but I do know this isn't an ideal world and we have to box clever.

 

Companies that abuse their customers should be put out of business IMHO. I don't have faith in the OFT, FSA or FOS, but I do think that if enough people complain enough to those regulatory and/or professional bodies that have the power to take action it will help everyone, and when it comes to court the LIP will have evidence of the underhand tactics being employed and stand more chance of winning.

 

May I suggest you stop trying to teach your granny to suck eggs. I'm well aware of the obstacles faced by any LiP in attempting to show that they won't be bullied by some of those within the judiciary who don't think the common man or woman should NOT have the right to seek justice without legal representation. There are far to many of them who are seen to treat the LiP with utter contempt.

 

IMHO what is needed is a vigorous campaign to expose those in the judiciary who act in this manner. In other words like the 'Solicitors from Hell' website there should be a thread in which Judgments & those individual Judges making them should be giving the oxygen of the web

 

As for the LiP's POC's & their quoting the law they shouldn't they should simply state what it is they are arguing & let the court consider the law although if the other-side do start doing it then there's nothing wrong with putting a counter argument quoting legislation.

[JonCris]

& of course they should be given the right of reply BEFORE it's posted then perhaps they will be a little more circumspect (& just) in their findings

[supersleuth]

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.

[Crapstone]

May I suggest you stop trying to teach your granny to suck eggs. I'm well aware of the obstacles faced by any LiP in attempting to show that they won't be bullied by some of those within the judiciary who don't think the common man or woman should NOT have the right to seek justice without legal representation. There are far to many of them who are seen to treat the LiP with utter contempt.

 

IMHO what is needed is a vigorous campaign to expose those in the judiciary who act in this manner. In other words like the 'Solicitors from Hell' website there should be a thread in which Judgments & those individual Judges making them should be giving the oxygen of the web

 

As for the LiP's POC's & their quoting the law they shouldn't they should simply state what it is they are arguing & let the court consider the law although if the other-side do start doing it then there's nothing wrong with putting a counter argument quoting legislation.

 

I'm with you on that JC..but would add in that they have no respect for anyone that is not fully fledged. I've seen them have a few legal execs. in tears because of their brisk words against them. I've lost my temper a few times when being spoken over. I produced a budget sheet to a judge many years ago, as advised by the CAB, solicitors..and the claimant. The judge took one look at it and asked what it was for and how he was supposed to use it. I can think of a more witty answer now but at the time I said that if he didn't know what a simple budget sheet was then he had no right to make any judgement.

 

Another asked me to give a reason why they shouldn't grant a charging order. The legal argument was set out in front of them ... My reply was simple..How would you like it if it were your bloody house and you were fighting to keep it?

 

On the whole I'd agree with keeping it simple but having the counter-arguments to fall back on. The admiration for honesty and truth is far better than trying to be a smart arse LiP from the off. And always shake hands with the judge, whatever the outcome...they sometimes have some very wise words to point you in the right direction.

[actionnotwords]

Unfortunately most District Judges derive from the solicitor business most of whom cynically fudge their way through their career and most have an ingrained hatred of any L.I.P. depriving their shoddy profession of the exorbitant fees it is able to charge.

I was initially apalled when first using the internet which to me is the greatest tool since the printing press,that the Law in which I was trained many years ago bore little resemblance to the Law practised in County Courts which appeared in many cases to be discretionary and dependent on whether the Judge liked the look of you or not.I do fortunately have more confidence in the High Court but few cases go this far.

 

Crapstone

Being an old experienced campaigner in obtaining refunds of charges could you kindly post definitively the charges and any interest added to accounts that are reclaimable.

I have been asked constantly this question but having never made such a claim and am embarassed by being unable to give a definitive answer.

Perhaps with your long term experiences you could help both me and many others who are unsure and consequently unsure of exactly what their true arrears if any really are , thus weakening any defence they may have in Court.

[brassed-off-2]

Just come across the followng and found this most interesting...especially the bit about the loan modification team, as i once made a phonecall the day before a court hearing, and i quote from my recorded call.."IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LITIGATION TEAM AND THE LOAN MODIFICATION TEAM?"

capstone's reply "WE HAVE AN ASSESSMENT TEAM WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE LITIGATION TEAM TO ASSESS INDIVIDUAL CASES, THERE IS A POSSIB ILITY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE LOAN MODIFICATION TEAM WITHOUT REALISING IT BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ADVERTISE THAT THEY WERE FROM THE LOAN MODIFICATION TEAM"!!!

 

HERES THE LINK!!

 

S&P | Servicer Evaluation: Capstone Mortgage Services Ltd.