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

[cher69cher69]

Hi guys

I have just come on to say that after reading mitchells post I am sat here crying with pure frustration. These tirants have got to be stopped, how the hell are these judges allowing them to repossess peoples homes and destroy peoples lives,when they dont even bother their arse to read the documentation that is presented to them. As they did in my case, the system is farcical.

 

This is their job for christ sake! That is what they are supposed to do, to make sure that people do get treated fairly and to hear both sides (Or am I wrong) because as in my case they just seem to grant suspended repos at the drop of a hat because they can go to lunch sooner.So I just want to say that "IF ANY JUDGES ARE READING THESE POSTS THIS IS FOR YOU!!!!!!"

"BLOODY WAKE UP JUDGES AND DO YOUR JOB THAT YOU GET PAID TO DO, SHOW YOU HAVE GOT SOME BALLS AND STAND UP TO THESE PEOPLE AND MAKE IT HARD FOR THEM"!

 

"THEY DONT TREAT THEIR CUSTOMERS FAIRLY SO WHY SHOULD THEY BE TREATED FAIRLY IN COURT, THROW THE BLOODY BOOK AT THEM!! YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS SO DO IT !!"

 

" MAKE THEM HAVE TO DOT EVERY I, AND CROSS EVERY T, AND IF THEY DONT THROW THE CASE OUT AND MAKE THEM START AGAIN. YOU ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE VULNERABL,E AND YOU ARE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE LAST PERSON IN THE LINE THAT CAN STOP THESE VENUMOUS BARSTERWARDS"

 

"ITS CALLED JUSTICE THE THING YOU SWORE TO UNDER OATH WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC". "REMEMBER????????"

 

Sorry guys!!! I just had to let that one rip, because it annoys me so much, and I feel so deeply sorry for all the people who's lives they have torn apart.

 

:)Hugs to everyone,and much appreciation to the people of this forum who unlike the judges help people free of charge and in their own time, you really dont now how much you are appreciated guys so I am telling you!! cher69xx

[andrew1]

Hi guys

I have just come on to say that after reading mitchells post I am sat here crying with pure frustration. These tirants have got to be stopped, how the hell are these judges allowing them to repossess peoples homes and destroy peoples lives,when they dont even bother their arse to read the documentation that is presented to them. As they did in my case, the system is farcical.

 

This is their job for christ sake! That is what they are supposed to do, to make sure that people do get treated fairly and to hear both sides (Or am I wrong) because as in my case they just seem to grant suspended repos at the drop of a hat because they can go to lunch sooner.So I just want to say that "IF ANY JUDGES ARE READING THESE POSTS THIS IS FOR YOU!!!!!!"

"BLOODY WAKE UP JUDGES AND DO YOUR JOB THAT YOU GET PAID TO DO, SHOW YOU HAVE GOT SOME BALLS AND STAND UP TO THESE PEOPLE AND MAKE IT HARD FOR THEM"!

 

"THEY DONT TREAT THEIR CUSTOMERS FAIRLY SO WHY SHOULD THEY BE TREATED FAIRLY IN COURT, THROW THE BLOODY BOOK AT THEM!! YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS SO DO IT !!"

 

" MAKE THEM HAVE TO DOT EVERY I, AND CROSS EVERY T, AND IF THEY DONT THROW THE CASE OUT AND MAKE THEM START AGAIN. YOU ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE VULNERABL,E AND YOU ARE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE LAST PERSON IN THE LINE THAT CAN STOP THESE VENUMOUS BARSTERWARDS"

 

"ITS CALLED JUSTICE THE THING YOU SWORE TO UNDER OATH WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC". "REMEMBER????????"

 

Sorry guys!!! I just had to let that one rip, because it annoys me so much, and I feel so deeply sorry for all the people who's lives they have torn apart.

 

:)Hugs to everyone,and much appreciation to the people of this forum who unlike the judges help people free of charge and in their own time, you really dont now how much you are appreciated guys so I am telling you!! cher69xx

 

 

I can understand your frustration, but most people with repo's don't get representation until the last minute, if that, and would never go through the detail caggers on here do. Remember the judge can only go by what is laid in front of him/her and as a judge once said to me " we only get 15 minutes with each repossession claim unless counsel has put in a defence". I'm afraid people ought to get themselves prepared when things are going fine and go through the fine lines of their mortgage documentation to ensure that it is correct in the event they have ever to use it as a last resort attempt to keep their homes.

 

Believe me, I am no lover of judges who dish out injustice having been a victim of that both as a LIP and represented, the system stinks at times I agree, but they can only go by what is in front of them and that my friends is often the trouble. You can shout all you like afterwards, but unless you prepare for it, you can't expect much else.

[caro]

For info I've moved some posts to their own threads, but if anyone on here can offer assistance, the links are here.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/258857-piersoa-capstone-spml-shortfall.html#post2916649

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/repossessions/258342-spml-capstone-repo-large.html

[cher69cher69]

I can understand your frustration, but most people with repo's don't get representation until the last minute, if that, and would never go through the detail caggers on here do. Remember the judge can only go by what is laid in front of him/her and as a judge once said to me " we only get 15 minutes with each repossession claim unless counsel has put in a defence". I'm afraid people ought to get themselves prepared when things are going fine and go through the fine lines of their mortgage documentation to ensure that it is correct in the event they have ever to use it as a last resort attempt to keep their homes.

 

Believe me, I am no lover of judges who dish out injustice having been a victim of that both as a LIP and represented, the system stinks at times I agree, but they can only go by what is in front of them and that my friends is often the trouble. You can shout all you like afterwards, but unless you prepare for it, you can't expect much else.

 

Hi Andrew1:)

Yes I totally agree with you, unfortunately at the time i put on that post I was ready to vent my splein and it just happened to be on here. lol!!!

But I do want to say that I also agree with you about people not getting reprosentation until the last minute, and also the point you made about people not being adequately prepared and organised.

 

But of my personal experiences in court, the judges I have met have given me the impression that they couldnt care less, I was just one of many in the day and they just dont want to know.Obviously this does not apply to all of them. Hopefully now with this pre-action protocol, things will be a lot better and fairer.

 

The last judge I had was unbelievable, I had been prepared, I had copies of every letter the lender sent me and ones I had sent to them. I had a list of all my payments and ones that were missed and the total arrears. I had already made an arrangement and I had in writing that if I stuck to it that court would be avoided. Also Proof I had stuck to this arrangement and that it was being paid and into its 2nd month of payment. But No that wasnt enough and this particular judge granted them a supended repo in about 10mins.

 

I also agree with you that the judge can only go by what's infont of him ,( well the one I had never looked at my defence so maybe you can understand me gettin a weee bit upset. cher69

[andrew1]

Hi Andrew1:)

Yes I totally agree with you, unfortunately at the time i put on that post I was ready to vent my splein and it just happened to be on here. lol!!!

But I do want to say that I also agree with you about people not getting reprosentation until the last minute, and also the point you made about people not being adequately prepared and organised.

 

But of my personal experiences in court, the judges I have met have given me the impression that they couldnt care less, I was just one of many in the day and they just dont want to know.Obviously this does not apply to all of them. Hopefully now with this pre-action protocol, things will be a lot better and fairer.

 

The last judge I had was unbelievable, I had been prepared, I had copies of every letter the lender sent me and ones I had sent to them. I had a list of all my payments and ones that were missed and the total arrears. I had already made an arrangement and I had in writing that if I stuck to it that court would be avoided. Also Proof I had stuck to this arrangement and that it was being paid and into its 2nd month of payment. But No that wasnt enough and this particular judge granted them a supended repo in about 10mins.

 

I also agree with you that the judge can only go by what's infont of him ,( well the one I had never looked at my defence so maybe you can understand me gettin a weee bit upset. cher69

 

..and just to add, or clarify my own point, if possible one should forward a Skeleton of your argument or defence, even as a Litigant in Person, to the court at the earliest possibility before the hearing so at least the judge has the opportunity to read it before you enter the court. I've had 8 pages of detailed clarifying information presented on the day just slung to one side by a judge and not read. Having spent weeks preparing and changing it and many a night ALL night working on it to have it discarded as if it were a newspaper they'd already read sickens a LIP to the bones. Even more the point when the subject matter is the repossession of your home. Needless to say my verbals fell on deaf ears and I might just have well not turned up. The whole truth and point totally missed by some woman eager to get to lunch as she was already running late - and that's not my words, she told us that!

 

We LIP's take the law literally and it just don't work like that in reality most of the time.

Edited May 9, 2010 by andrew1

[Suetonius]

LD.

So the assigment from LMC to SPML was an equitable assignment yet the Land Registry will say you have to go to court to have the register altered no doubt.

 

A word to the wise Actionnotwords, expressing views of equitable assignment are usually met with verbal abuse, including being accused of being a Shill and Jaw. Not from me though..

[Suetonius]

..and just to add, or clarify my own point, if possible one should forward a Skeleton of your argument or defence, even as a Litigant in Person, to the court at the earliest possibility

 

I could not agree with this statement more.

 

Don't give them any reason/opportunity to ignore or totally disregard your arguments

[actionnotwords]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/repossessions/258856-michtell-capstone-spml-court.html#post2915534

 

IMPORTANT THE POSTS THAT WERE STARTED BY MICHTELL concerning HER POSSIBLE EVICTION HAVE NOW BEEN MOVED HERE.

Would anyone who can help please visit this link:

 

MICHTELL ELL-ENN IS WAITING TO HELP YOU THERE.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/repossessions/258856-michtell-capstone-spml-court.html#post2915534

Edited May 9, 2010 by actionnotwords

[brassed-off-2]

Could not post a link to this so have posted article.

 

MoneyMarketing

 

Capstone could be in line for MBO

 

29 April 2010 | By Paul Thomas

 

The management of Lehman Brothers’ mortgage administrator subsidiary company Capstone Mortgage Services could be planning a buyout of the firm, Money Marketing understands.

Lehman’s administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers are understood to be looking to restructure the business so its management gain a bigger stake in running the firm, fuelling speculation that the management team are aiming to achieve a buyout.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers spokeswoman says: “The Capstone management team has been retained to run and potentially grow the business. There is no outside private equity support.”

But the spokeswoman would not comment on speculation of an MBO.

It was first suggested that Capstone could be sold in September 2008 following the winding-up order against Lehman Brothers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers put Lehman’s sub-prime mortgage book up for sale in January 2009 after it reportedly failed to deleverage the Preferred Mortgages and SPML mortgage books.

 

Lehman Brothers went into administration in September 2008 in the biggest bankruptcy in US history.

 

 

Mmmmm!! This could account for all the recent activity at companies house!! and the FSA register being updated rather quickly too!!....now theres a first.

[actionnotwords]

A word to the wise Actionnotwords, expressing views of equitable assignment are usually met with verbal abuse, including being accused of being a Shill and Jaw. Not from me though..

 

Suetonius, a correction for future reference: JAWs= Jackal lenders At Work, eg SPML/PML/SPPL/LMC

 

I am used to being called names but my position on equitable assignment is clear.

I believe in the arguments of supersleuth as quoted here:

 

"Back to that s.136 issue. There is a principle that a statute cannot be used as an instrument of fraud. Here, the SPV's intentionally use s.136 as an instrument of fraud. They say, ha ha, we deliberately won't send a notice and so we believe that we can set up s.136 to defeat the LRA 2002 s.27. Well No. That is to use a 1925 statute in a manner inconsistent with a mandatory provision of a 2002 statute. Plus, s.136 was never intended to be used for the fraudulent purpose to which it is currently being used, and, there is no case law saying that this provision can be used in this manner. "

The simple fact and reality is that this ruse has been used successfully in the Courts and until there is a precedental High Court Ruling that supports supersleuth's arguments we are unfotunately still stuck with the Pender judgement,outdated or/and flawed as it may be argued.

Perhaps Walker on Thursday may change or clarify this if indeed the issue of the substituted SPV is raised and made an issue,which is perhaps doubtful.

 

The equitable/legal argument was used by a member of this thread in its early days.

 

Originally Posted by kegi

being a complete novice in matters of law can someone please tell me I am wrong when after just reading the case of paragon vs pender that the penders lost and a lot of what has been written here in brilliant detail I might add viz a vi securitisation matters that they have been blown out of the water by this ..... please tell me I am wrong

 

kegi

Kegi you are absolutely right. I dealt with these SPML retards last year, and the case was rejected by the court. Bottom line, SPML do not need to notify the borrower that the mortgage was sold because SPML does not transfer LEGAL title, only beneficial title to the mortgage, therefor the land registry does not need to be notified. Any argument relying on this is doomed to fail. The Paragon case makes this clear. You can try other grounds or try negotiating with Capstone in the first instance. In the end I spent a lot of time writing letters and in court and got nowhere until negotiated a performing arrangement with capstone.quote Londres

 

The reality of using this argument in court appears that it will continue to fail at County Court level because Pender will be thrown at them until supersleuth's arguments are endorsed in a judgement by the High Court which will then set a new precedent.

Supersleuth's arguments with which I agree, the spv's ruse being premeditated and a deliberate deception of the borrower, are further hampered by the Court's apparent policy and Lender bias to refuse full disclosure of the Securitization documents.This why Walker could be so important if these issues are indeed addressed.

Edited May 9, 2010 by actionnotwords

[actionnotwords]

Mmmmm!! This could account for all the recent activity at companies house!! and the FSA register being updated rather quickly too!!....now theres a first.

 

Also the letters sent out to LMC customers advising of change of administrator,changes earlier in the year to account numbers,attempts to clear up the books,rapacious repossession if you are in arrears and an early settlement discount to move if you are not.

The accounts of this group all state"an orderly wind down of affairs" this is it in progress.

WILL THE SPV'S SEEK FSA LICENCING? IT COULD BE NEXT WITH CAPSTONE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR.

[Suetonius]

Suetonius, a correction for future reference: JAWs= Jackal lenders At Work, eg SPML/PML/SPPL/LMC

 

I am used to being called names but my position on equitable assignment is clear.

 

If I have misunderstood your previous posts I offer you my unreserved apologies. However, your position as demonstrated by your previous posts did appear to be very clear:

 

The notice to noteholders is from the special purpose vehicle to whom sppl sold all the equitable titles retaining the legal titles and the right to enforce security of its loan pool ie.in English,repossession.

 

Once the mortgage is originated by the lender the" equitable title" is the sold to the spv and administered by capstone under the mortgage administration agreement.

 

In effect the originators/lenders functions appear to cease once the equitable title is sold to the spv and the legal title is held by them on trust for the spv,that is my understanding please correct me if I am wrong. I will wade through the prospectus again to make sure.

 

.From my reading of this of which I of course will stand corrected sppl sold the equitable title of the loan to sps 05-2.

 

As has been said so many times before the loan debt does not disappear with the demise of the originator / lender it passes to the spv who in the case of mortgage loans I believe must issue a s136 LOP Act 1925 notification to the borrower for the legal title to pass and be legally effective.

 

It will be interesting to follow this case and see what new issues it may raise concerning these matters and questions of contract and title to sue ,if the walkers have not received the s136 the spv does not have title to sue! as sppl are still the legal titleholders.

 

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.

 

and as posted above:

 

. Bottom line, SPML do not need to notify the borrower that the mortgage was sold because SPML does not transfer LEGAL title, only beneficial title to the mortgage, therefor the land registry does not need to be notified.

 

Your position appeared to be very clear by your previous posts. At least that was until you just posted:

 

Supersleuth's arguments with which I agree,

 

The short point is: that the only persone/entity who has contractual rights that can be asserted against you in the court IS the SPV. The SPV is the only entity at law who is entitled to a possession order (if they prove their case). The SPV is the only entity that has legal standing (locus standi) to bring a cause in action against you because it is the SPV that legally owns your mortgage. No other entity or company has any right to any order/judgment against you.

 

Therefore, when the so called "lender" brings the claim, that lender is NOT in contract with you because they sold the mortgage and therefore they in fact, have NO contractual claim against you.

 

Unless I was very much mistaken SS's argument was that the legal title had passed to the SPV. Whereas you have repeatedly said that unless a notification has been given to the borrower only the equitable title has passed to the SPV.

 

Taking SS's argument and your previous posts into consideration, I am sure you will fully appreciate my confusion. Especially, as your position would appear to be the complete opposite rather than one of agreement with SS.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Suetonius

[actionnotwords]

Please accept my apologies.

Perhaps I am guilty of ambiguity/confusion.

 

1)The legal title cannot pass to the spv without as the current law stands notification to the borrower as in s136 l.o.p.1925

 

2)When I state I agree with supersleuth,I agree with her/his sentiment and unproven argument that it is the exploitation of a legal loophole by the spv to deceive the borrower but as stated this has yet to be proven in a court that has the authority to set a precedent

.

So s136 stands until that moment,it cannot be otherwise and the courts will not accept it as otherwise,hence the importance of Walker.

[iconoclash]

Hi - i suppose when it comes to getting in front of the DJ and you have lots of papers and defence issues, it is a sign of what's coming when they've only allocated 15 mins to it !!:-|

[cher69cher69]

..and just to add, or clarify my own point, if possible one should forward a Skeleton of your argument or defence, even as a Litigant in Person, to the court at the earliest possibility before the hearing so at least the judge has the opportunity to read it before you enter the court. I've had 8 pages of detailed clarifying information presented on the day just slung to one side by a judge and not read. Having spent weeks preparing and changing it and many a night ALL night working on it to have it discarded as if it were a newspaper they'd already read sickens a LIP to the bones. Even more the point when the subject matter is the repossession of your home. Needless to say my verbals fell on deaf ears and I might just have well not turned up. The whole truth and point totally missed by some woman eager to get to lunch as she was already running late - and that's not my words, she told us that!

 

We LIP's take the law literally and it just don't work like that in reality most of the time.

 

Hi Andrew1

This is precisely my point I didnt actually say but I was more than prepared and my defence went back to the court well in advance of the date of the hearing. I felt confident in what I had written and thought the judge would see how unfairly we were being treated and how capstone were wasting courts time and money by bringing a case to court that already had an agreement in place and ongoing. It was just unbelievable, I was just stood there gobsmacked. I nearly said to the judge firstly have you read any of that pile of papers in front of you or are you gettin backhanders from these people. But of course that would be ridiculous and I wouldn't dare say anything like that to a judge nevertheless the thought did cross my mind! lol!!

[cher69cher69]

I just thought I would put this info on for anyone who may find it useful!!

 

The Personal Support Unit (PSU) is an independent charitywhose aim is to offer help, information, support and non-legal advice to litigants in person or others who have to attend a court hearing. Their main base of operation is the Royal Courts of Justice in London but they may be able to provide assistance at other courts. The PSU is staffed by volunteers who can offer moral support and provide information about what to expect at court. Whilst they can attend hearings, they cannot give legal advice or provide representation

[littledotty27]

All gone quiet on here! I take it no one has any input?

[actionnotwords]

Thats good news Mitchell,just goes to show the courts are taking notice now. I would say thats CAG 6-0 Scumbags,what do ya reckon Ryde? :grin:quote littledotty

 

Littledotty

As you are well aware but others may not be,the thread being tucked away.

 

CAG 7-0 Scumbags (+scumbags sent off for the second time in the tie!)

 

You could say michtell scored a hatrick as the greedy parasites lost out heavily by not accepting the first or second offers and after actually squeezing even more blood , the parasites were still unsatiated and went for the killer blow, eviction.

 

The whole story is here.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/repossessions/258856-michtell-capstone-spml-court-2.html#post2923881

 

They now have to settle for a vastly reduced offer ,no eviction and a hammering by the sympathetic and understanding judge( yes! they do actually exist!) , oh what joy!!!:grin::grin::grin:

[Crapstone]

Still no reply from SPML. As far as I am aware we have complied to paying back the arrears at a rate of £50 per month and more as per the court order. So why are they still listing us as in 6 months arrears with credit agencies and not using that money for the arrears? We were in front in the first place when they said we had arrears and now from the overall figure. with everything included, we are further in front than if we had glued to the original agreement. At this rate of payment we should be 5 to 7 years ahead on clearing the debt. We have more than paid back the original arrears. They are a hopeless bunch of idiots. That's including all the interest, charges back and fees.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Crapstone

[actionnotwords]

There is a distinct,disturbing and sinister pattern emerging here,anyone who is in or has been in arrears has been subject to renewed efforts through manufactured breaches and deliberate lies and inaccuracies to bring litigation against them leading to eviction.It appears this is being stepped up,possibly to clear the mortgage books as customers(victims) with clean records are being offered large discount incentives to move.

Edited May 13, 2010 by actionnotwords
exhaustion

[actionnotwords]

Any word on the Walker case anyone , should have took place yesterday?

[rocket1]

It is abundantly clear to me that the mortgage lending market is completely crooked.

 

Not unnaturally, I want to do something about it. I want a class legal action against these thieves and maximum publicity. I want them destroyed - completely.

 

It is already the case the major banks are under fire and most likely be broken up in the UK and the USA as a direct result of their behaviour irritating public opinion and irritating both governments which are publicly announcing legislation to deal with the banks.

 

But the full scale of the subprime scandal has not been properly brought into the public arena.

 

If it was, the we might see some real action.

 

We need to get together to do something about it.

 

Would you be interested ?

 

At the very least your story is an excellent example of a particular type of activity these fraudsters get up to and would be a useful publicity tool.

 

The famous Shakespeare story of the 'Merchant of Venice' quoted now for centuries and used as a yardstick to describe the evil behaviour of moneylenders and how they might be dealt with is interesting.

 

The story accepts that a contract for money lending was made and that the contract must be adhered to because contracts are a cornerstone of society's functionality.

 

 

But Shylock is clearly mis-using and abusing his power over the borrower having difficulty re-paying Shylock's loan. It is clear Shylock is being evil and vindictive in insisting on the absolute letter of the contract which allows Shylock to take a pound of flesh from his victim from any part of the victim's body he chooses.

 

Shylock wishes to take his 'rightful' pound of flesh from nearest his victim's heart - which would obviously kill him. But Shylock could choose to take the pound of flesh from, say the victim's calf muscle or backside or somewhere where it would cause a minimum of damage and certainly not kill him.

 

The Venetian Court has to recognise the validity of the contract. There is no dispute about it. Shylock is correct; he has his rights under the contract.; the borrower has broken the contract and Shylock wants his redress under the law; Shylock is entitled to it.

 

The Venetian Court can see Shylock is being unnecessarily vindictive in wanting to kill his victim mostly because Shylock just hates him for some previous insult directed by the borrower at Shylock.

 

So, the courts tells Shylock that the contract must, indeed, be upheld and Shylock must have his pound of flesh; BUT, as the contract mentions nothing about any blood being taken with the flesh, the court forcibly reminds Shylock that while taking his flesh, he must take care not to take even one drop of blood because it is not due under the terms of the contract.

 

Shylock can take only flesh - not blood.

 

The Court tells Shylock that he will be punished by the full weight of the law if any harm comes to Shylock's victim as a result of him losing any blood.

 

So, Shylock finds he cannot take his flesh at all. He ends up losing his own property and being banished ( if I remember correctly).

 

This story is universally used to illustrate that lenders should be reasonable when dealing with loan repayment difficulties. The story also forcibly points out the injustice of lenders insisting on adhering to the letter of devious contracts and exploiting the weaknesses of borrowers.

 

The story also shows in no uncertain terms just how grasping, nasty, unfair lenders should be treated.

 

This principle needs to be quoted brought into every court room and to public attention. That our courts are currently completely ignoring all principles of reasonableness and fairness and are behaving in the precise opposite way the Venetian Court did. The courts should be asked why.

 

Our dim witted, politically correct jobsworth courts would have allowed Shylock to take his pound of flesh from nearest the heart, shed as much blood as he liked in the process and kill the victim in the process.

 

It goes completely against the grain of common decency that our courts should so ruthlessly support the wickedness of the subprime mortgage lenders.

 

They don't have to, and they could easily use the law to minimise repossessions or even stop them almost completely.

 

 

It is a fact that the banks, and their subprime subsidiary mortgage lenders, have dishonestly used the law to deliberately construct manipulative, unfair, unreasonable and positively wicked mortgage contracts that no borrower could properly understand.

 

The banks have taken over the entire mortgage market and trashed it by turning fairly straight forward building society loans for the purpose of putting a roof over your head ( with few repossessions ever necessary) into a nightmare of greasy manipulative impossible to understand or even avoid sorry excuses to rip off every single home loan borrower in the country in as many ways as the grasping banks can imagine.

 

The banks, not happy enough with creating the raft of enormous extra charges they inflict on 'normal' ordinary non subprime borrowers, deliberately designed a system of subprime lending into which they contrived to push ever increasing numbers of ordinary, credit worthy, reliable citizens to enable the banks to milk ludicrous sums of money from them.

 

Are we all just going to lie down, roll over and let these vile banks do this and get away with it ?

 

Or are we actually going to bothered to make a bit of an effort to fight them ?

 

Do let me know folks.

[sawyer]

There is a distinct,disturbing and sinister pattern emerging here,anyone who is in or has been in arrears has been subject to renewed efforts through manufactured breaches and deliberate lies and inaccuracies to bring litigation against them leading to eviction.It appears this is being stepped up,possibly to clear the mortgage books as customers(victims) with clean records are being offered large discount incentives to move.

 

I believe this could be true. Our May payment had been made, cash at bank with receipt in plenty of time for 1st of the month. Capstone have sent a letter re non receipt of payment with Litigation Fee £115 added, repossession etc etc

 

Rocket I'm up for anything to bring these **** down. Just to also let you know I haven't been idle re complaining.

 

Anybody else with an FOS complaint, how are things going?

 

I'm not too happy about giving too much private detail publicly knowing that Capstone are reading this thread.

 

Please feel free to PM me

[Crapstone]

Sawyer, I won with the FOS against SPML and Capstone for various reasons.

 

They lost our payments and blamed us for not sending them. They argued that we were liars and had to give them proof. An SAR and screen dump showed that they had received it but not credited it. Which reminds me they still owe me another £350. Don't forget to add your costs to any claim!

 

The worst thing you can do is panic,as you exhaust yourself and play straight into their hands. Step back ..swear and tackle it head on step by step.

[Suetonius]

Don't forget to add your costs to any claim!

 

Very good point Crapstone. I would also suggest, contrary to the implied message that pops up for the FOS, everyone also remembers to claim interest at 8% in every complaint made.

 

 

FAQs Businesses - how we award redress

 

"But in most cases the effect on the consumer’s finances could only be discovered by making speculative assumptions. So unless it is apparent what the consumer’s borrowing cost (or investment loss) actually was, we are likely to award interest at 8% a year simple."

 

This can work out to be a considerable sum, especially when reclaiming charges.