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

[iconoclash]

So sorry Campari that it didn't go so well.

 

Hi midge thanks. Tomorrow is another day! - had to get out of that litigation and costs scenario but onward onward.....

 

Would love to see a template letter to the FSA, Ministers etc about certain aspects of the law that have become apparent during all this, that need some serious attention. A campaign is invited to get this up and running for evyones' sake - and - has anyone heard of this **** I had to listen to about ambiguous costs being automatically found in favour of claimants? ta

[midge61]

Hi

 

pt2537 may be able to tell you the answer to that one. Try and pm him.

[littledotty27]

Supersleuth

 

I am wondering if you can please help me draft a letter that I can send with the witness statement to court explaining the process of the securisation that we are in.

I am really crap at putting things in writing to get my point across.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

[iconoclash]

Hi there - just having a moan about my case again. I thought after sleeping on it that I would find some virtue in the justice system lurking in some corner but having re-read CPR rule, pre-action protcols, mcob rules etc etc etc, I am of the opinion that it "don't mean a thing" - having a mortgage with a clause that allows all legal costs to be borne by the consumer seems to be paramount for all - that it is not highlighted, nor explained, before signing seems insignificant to the industry, faxing over revised costs lists to increase my liability to over £6000 on the very morning of the hearing is again fine by the system, none of this notifying the client within blah blah days before seems to matter, having a claim instigated by a company that doesnt even own the product anymore is also ok it seems, being assisted by welfare rights and therefore in financial hardship - what about that one - nope, I can still be made liable for this **** even though it is in fact more than the ****dy arrears they're chasing. And as for capitalising arrears, payment holidays or any other government assumed options; they simply ignore it all. Greed and profiteering still rules.

[littledotty27]

In the prospectus it states Eurosail are registered with the fsa & it gives an fsa registered number.

I have typed this number in thr fsa register & it comes up with no matches found plus the number given is a digit too many.

[iconoclash]

We have a chance because the rule of law is on the side of the borrowers. The lenders have breached many criminal laws and civil laws. It is up to the borrowers to assert their defence and to enforce all the consumer protections that the borrowers have against the lenders.

 

Plus as I keep saying, the Claimant named on the Claim Form is NOT the lender and therefore has NO RIGHT AT LAW to claim a repossession against your property.

 

If you wait for, or expect that the government/FSA/FOS to fight for YOUR home, think again. That will not happen.

Hi SS: you are right I know, its funny that my sol. says we challenge the rest of our case with these institutions isnt it. what a larf! I've tried sending complaints about companies b4. And, having specifically asked about the claimant not actually owning the mortgage anymore all I got was a shrug of the shoulders - and I dont know about that. Really, we are up against it, it is very hard for an individual to deal with this stuff alone, when the so called help doesnt even know how to help and the stupid government think that there is representation for everyone in all courts - so not living in the real world! Just wish we could join forces on this stuff - strength in numbers and all that. any takers? proposal, petition?

[scedminc]

Hi SS: you are right I know, its funny that my sol. says we challenge the rest of our case with these institutions isnt it. what a larf! I've tried sending complaints about companies b4. And, having specifically asked about the claimant not actually owning the mortgage anymore all I got was a shrug of the shoulders - and I dont know about that. Really, we are up against it, it is very hard for an individual to deal with this stuff alone, when the so called help doesnt even know how to help and the stupid government think that there is representation for everyone in all courts - so not living in the real world! Just wish we could join forces on this stuff - strength in numbers and all that. any takers? proposal, petition?

 

Hi Campari2,

 

I think everyone agrees you are correct that we all need to stand up fight as there is no support from the government and won't be in the short term if ever. I have been talking with SuperSleuth on a different thread and i am in the process of building a case against my so called lender as i have suspended repossession order on my house and there is no way they will take it without a fight. I have spent months of trying to get my head around the whole thing and thanks to SuperSleuth and a few other am i finally starting to understand what is/has happended. I suggest that everyone that has a definate interest and enough fight in them to do lots of research and learning and put up a fight as well. Then just maybe the government will have to open there eyes and look at what happening.

[iconoclash]

Hi - here is an intersting read re SPML shares etc

 

Standard & Poor's - U.K. Nonconforming RMBS Index Report Q3 2006

 

[littledotty27]

Had another email from ITN today,they are looking into securisation & its perils & will be doing the story very soon.

 

Is anyone wanting or should I say willing to have there say on the securisation?

As I have seen many a post of other CAG members wanting too have there say & let the courts, other borrowers & Land registry know of what is going on.

So come on don't be shy!!

[scedminc]

Had another email from ITN today,they are looking into securisation & its perils & will be doing the story very soon.

 

Is anyone wanting or should I say willing to have there say on the securisation?

As I have seen many a post of other CAG members wanting too have there say & let the courts, other borrowers & Land registry know of what is going on.

So come on don't be shy!!

 

Hi LittleDotty,

 

I may be interested as i want to bring these idiots to justice and make then accountable not only for me but the people of past, present and future. What are ITN saying and have they said what they are looking into and how they intend to report it?

[littledotty27]

The editor has said he has set aside friday to look into the securisation & its perils & that he wants to do the story-soon!!

He has not said on how they are intend to report it or look into it.

 

I am totally with you Scedminc on bringing these cowboys companies to justice for the sake of others.

[scedminc]

The editor has said he has set aside friday to look into the securisation & its perils & that he wants to do the story-soon!!

He has not said on how they are intend to report it or look into it.

 

I am totally with you Scedminc on bringing these cowboys companies to justice for the sake of others.

 

LittleDotty,

 

I'm sure that when the editor starts looking into it he will need more than friday lol hope that don't scare them off.

 

I am interested so if i am needed then let me know. I think we all need to sign up to this so we can all stand out together and make a bigger impression.

[littledotty27]

I agree, the more the merrier, lets put the boot on the other foot,but we will do it the legal way!!

[iconoclash]

Hi - you can certainly use my case as yet another example of what charlatans are involved - e.g the claimants solicitors are actually on the panel for consultation for FSA !!

 

OK - also see this little snippet I've cut from larger doc, and see the implications in what its saying.....

"Originator insolvency

 

Mortgage payments from borrowers are typically paid by direct debit into a collection account, transferred to a transaction account in the name of the issuer, and finally credited to the GIC account. The degree to which insolvency of the originator will affect the cash flow from the assets depends, therefore, on the collection account characteristics. The amount at risk depends on the timing of payments from borrowers and the frequency with which these funds are transferred to the transaction account. If all borrowers pay on the same day of the month, then even with daily sweeping of the collection account, up to one month's cash flow from the assets is potentially at risk.

The collection account is often not in the name of the issuer, as most originators do not want to ask borrowers to change their direct debit instructions as a result of securitization. Under English law, if the issuer has been granted the benefit of a properly executed declaration of trust over the collection account, then insolvency of the originator should not result in a loss of funds, but should only involve a simple delay. This risk will need to be modeled appropriately for each transaction, but normally results in a delay of one month's cash flow for three months over an interest payment date."

 

[littledotty27]

Update....ITN are seeking advice of a specialist lawyer & are certainly going to do a report!!

 

This is what was sent to me

 

I am really interested in finding out whether mortgage firms are breaking official rules designed to ensure they treat customers fairly. As you know, FSA regulations are there to help familes who are falling behind with mortgage payments. The rules say repossession should only be "a last resort". Lenders are supposed to give proper consideration to other options, such as extending the period of the loan, switching to interest only or giving the customer a paymnet holiday. But if the loan is actually "sold on" as you show...how can lenders consider those alternatives? Does this mean homeowners are far more likley to face the agony of repossession?

Do you know about HML? When you call your mortgage company - you may actually end up talking to staff of a seperate firm who just pretend to be with a mortage firm. Loan firms are getting call centres to deal with customers - but the centres deal with many companies and thousands of borrowers. HML is the biggset in Europe and its based in Skipton. . This place handles around 30 UK mortgage companies.

 

The FSA mortgage code tells lenders they can only reposses "as a last resort"...but can mortgage firms apply the rules if the loans are sold to investors via securitisation and can no longer be modified?

[iconoclash]

Hiya - oh you mean like taking you to court when they know they wont get a full repossession anyway so that they can add over £6000 to your account in legal fees hoping you will default in there pre-factored in time scale (usually about 18 months) and then jump in! arrrgh.....

 

Many thanks guys for all your pointers re the securitisation and Oakwood - I am still on the case - reporting back again soonest

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re your post on 2nd Feb. If you PM a draft of your defence and witness statement, I'll have a look and give you suggestions.

 

As for the reporter - excellent.

 

Also, the Treasury Select Committee are doing an inquiry on the "banking crisis". I am preparing some evidence from the consumer perspective and hope they'll take note.

 

There was witness evidence on consumer issues heard on 14 January 2009 (see website parliamentlive tv archive where you can watch the video).

 

Unfortunately, the witnesses for the Consumer Issues were the CAB, nice guy, but knows absolutely zero about the securitisation issues. A chap from Which Magzaine - not much use at putting the case for consumers and then, would you believe it - the rest of them were the F*ing BANKS!!! the BBA, the CML and some guy representing lease finance lenders. Don't think this rabble could state the case for the consumer!!

 

Therefore, I think we should all write statements to our local MP and ask them to forward it as evidence to the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, John McFall MP to be used as evidence for the inquiry into the banking crisis.

 

If you do write to your MP and provide a witness statement for John McFall, please consider stating that you are disappointed with the witnesses who spoke on Consumer Issues as they were conflicted in the CML and the BBA represent and are loyal to the banks and therefore are conflicted against the interests of consumers, which consequently means that the committee has not heard the real consumer issues that need to be address. The primary issue being this securitsation fiasco.

 

Witness statements could cover things like, the lender's behaviour, the manner in which you are treated by the court service and judges, the lack of access to legal advice, and the ineffectiveness of the FSA to protect consumer interests (i.e. the constant non-compliance with FSA rules and the FSA unwillingness to enforce the rules for consumers) and any other issues that you can think of.

 

Supersleuth

.

[littledotty27]

Thank you for that Supersleuth, PM sent

[supersleuth]

Hi Campri2,

 

Re your post #128 where you say:

 

- has anyone heard of this **** I had to listen to about ambiguous costs being automatically found in favour of claimants? ta

 

With respect to the costs question, have a read of my post on this thread #98. When in court the Claimant is asserting that the court should apply a rule of law - remember to make them state exactly WHAT RULE they wish the judge to apply. If they cannot state the rule, then you can ask that the judge does not consider the application of an ambiguous rule! After all, the law has to be certain. Plus when a judge is exercising his jurisdiction on the question of costs he MUST consider the factors set out in CPR 44.3

 

Also, I cannot imagine that a rule about ambiguous costs"could possibly exists. Costs are costs. So they have to be clear on what costs they are asking for. If they don't bother to state the rule the judge should not apply it. Don't be shy, be assertive, always make them expressly state the rule and powers that they are invoking.

 

HOWEVER, all is not bad news because...it may be that they are averring to the contractual clause that you pay the defendant pays the costs. When there is a contractual clause to pay the costs of the claimant...BUT...the rule cannot be applied in your case until the judge has gone through the Unfair Contract Terms act. See my post number 98

 

The clause in your contract that says you will pay their costs is not enforceable against you, and therefore, they have relied on a rule to stuff you with costs when that rule is not applicable until such time that the judge makes a determination that the contractual clause on costs, is fair and enforceable (which it is not!). The judge has erred in law at the behest of the Claimant.

 

Therefore, the rule of thumb for any issue is: always insist that they state the exact rule and not guess. Tell the judge you want to know whic rule he is applying because you are unable to argue against the application of a rule if you don't have the opportunity to know and see which rule he is using. If the Claimant cannot state the rule then the judge should not accept their submission.

 

Other relevant law

 

Possession claims are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55.

It may be a good idea to print off this part 55 from the hm courtservice website. Also print off Part 44 and/or part 46 which give the court rules on costs.

[supersleuth]

Campari2,

 

You can write to the court and ask that the order be varied. Here's a starting point for you.

 

It is requested that the court vary the order in relation to costs to the effect that each party is to pay its own costs on the following grounds

 

1. The court exercised its discretion on the Claimant's proposition of law that there is a rule that ambiguous costs are to be awarded to the Claimant. The Claimant was unable to give any authority to support that proposition of law, nor able to cite a particular rule that supports that proposition. Therefore, the court was unable to determine whether such rule exists at law, and the defendant was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the existence of such proposition. Consequently, the court erred when awarding costs as it rested its exercise of discretion on an ambiguous and unsupported proposition of law.

 

2. The court erred in the exercise of its discretion in that it failed to consider the factors which the court must consider pursuant to CPR 44.3 and 44.5.

 

In particular, the court did not consider the issue proportionality pursuant to 44.5(1) in that, the Claimant's costs were disproportionate to the amount claimed. The Claimant complained of alleged arrears of £xxx and claimed legal costs in excess of £6,000. Such costs are disproportionate to the claim asserted. Additionally, the amount of costs claimed were unreasonably incurred.

 

3. [Assuming that they didn't follow the pre-action protocols - use this too.] Pursuant to CPR 44.3(5)(a), the Claimant should not be awarded costs on the grounds that the Claimant failed to comply with the pre-action protocols and accordingly should not have commenced these proceedings until it had complied with its lawful duty. Accordingly, the Claimant should not be rewarded in light of its failure to comply with the court's pre-action protocol rules and in light of its failure to comply with its legal obligations under the FSA regulations.

 

Consider those points for starters. Also write to the theives and tell them you want a detailed breakdown of the costs and state expressly that you want a copy of the invoice that the law firm has sent to them. You only have to pay exactly what the law firm charged. Hence, then must have an invoice with that amount.

 

Also, with respect to the "ambiguous costs rule" they may be refering to CPR 48.3 (and see also CPR 48PD.1). This is a rule about the amount of costs where costs are payable pursuant to a contract. If that is the rule they were talking about, then they'd have to say!! In the meantime, be ready for it because, you will have to argue that the contract clause is not enforceable under unfair terms etc. (see post number 988) and the judge cannot apply the r.48.3 until he has made a determination under the unfair terms legislation.

 

Hope this helps...keep fighting...although I do understand it's like banging your head on a brick wall.

 

Supersleuth

[louip123]

hi just came across this and wondered if it was of any interest to anyone

 

SPML securitisation of £700m mortgage assets

 

Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited has recently successfully completed the securitisation of £700m of its mortgage assets, consisting of 88% first charge and 12% second charge mortgages from across its prime, light adverse and non-conforming loan product ranges.

The securitisation was arranged and lead-managed by Lehman Brothers who were joined by DZ Bank AG as manager. It was sold in sterling and euros. This equals SPML’s largest ever securitisation to date.

 

Reflecting the high quality of the mortgage loan book and SPML's proven servicing ability, approximately £602m equivalent to 86.00%, of the total was rated AAA/Aaa/AAA, £45.50m, 6.50%, was rated AA/Aa2/AA, £26.25m, 3.75% was rated A/A2/A, £22.75m, 3.25%, was rated BBB/Baa2/BBB and £3.50m, 0.50%, was rated BB/Ba1/BB by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch respectively.

 

Paul Rowbotham, head of investor relations at SPML, says: "SPS 05-1 equalled our largest securitisation ever. We were able to act quickly to bring this deal in response to very strong investor demand.

 

"The transaction was notably oversubscribed and it was again particularly pleasing to have introduced a number of new, major investors to the SPML securitisation programme which has now seen over £4.1bn of issuance.

 

"he success of the transaction reflects well on SPML’s continued high quality loan origination, five-star servicing and collections management systems and its responsible attitude to the timing and structure of its securitisation deals

[midge61]

Hi littledotty

 

Have sent you an e-mail:)

[Blue-eyed-girl]

Hi There, we are currently with LMC also and have come across their anticts, we have got a suspended re-posession order where we fell behind due to a marital split, we have negotiated a re-payment scheme of £100 a month but low and behold £41.96 of this is being taken as interest charged on the monies owing!

[littledotty27]

Supersleuth

In reply to your thread #44 I am now in receipt of my mortgage deeds from the land registry, signed by myself & husband & solicitor as witness.

It mentions nothing about SPML only matlock bank t/a LMC.

[littledotty27]

Thanks Midge61 I have received your email which I shall pass on.