FSA ISSUES WARNING AS SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE THIEVES CONTINUE TO ABUSE HOMEOWNERS

From Capstone’s blog today about the sub-prime mortgage thieves.

‘The ever decreasing plausibility with which the awful CAPSTONE MORTGAGES pleads the fairness of its charging regimes is most likely to have taken a further slide south yesterday with the fine and compensation order levied upon another rag tag outfit of sub-prime crooks, Kensington Mortgages, by the newly emboldened Fantastic Services Authority (that’s the Financial Services Authority).

At the heart of the issue is of course the appalling and systemic consumer abuse perpetrated by these shameless thieves whose main goal in life is to convert your cash into theirs by any and all means possible. The abusive phone calls and letters are but a side-show when compared to the cash-grab these vultures have planned for so long.

The charges increase their revenue stream, increase their profits and over time make default on the mortgage or loan a near certainty which of course is what they wanted all along.

This is so they can drag your sorry ass in court, and throw you and your kids out onto the street, grabbing of course whatever equity they can in the meantime. All too often the pathetic courts never even challenge their fictitious standing, their fictitious claims and their fictitious amounts, and I say SHAME ON THE COUNTY COURTS, for siding so readily with this desperate bunch of con-artists and fraudsters.’

From Capstone’s blog

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “FSA ISSUES WARNING AS SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE THIEVES CONTINUE TO ABUSE HOMEOWNERS”

  1. capstonewatch Says:

    Hi Securitisation bloke

    In one sense you are of course correct. Securitisation was the holy grail of the financial services industry. It probably made available to many people the dream of purchasing your own home a reality.

    “All very well, but the lenders who used the securitisation market to lend to sub-prime borrowers did it on the wholly unremarkable basis that they wanted to get their money back at some stage.”

    Is a mortgage contract not typically for 25 years? Rather than say the five years investors were promised in the securitisation prospectuses.?

    The main problem here of course is that you state borrowers were all uniformly people with poor credit records, thereby closing off the possibility of a remortgage which is virtually impossible to anyone who isn’t squeaky clean. Thus possession was the game plan from the very start as was the smash and grab on people’s equity. It is all very well to point to the virtues of the securitisation process and the imperfections of the borrowers but it in no way justifies the absolutely appalling practices and track record of this industry. Which If any of these practices do you condone?

    (a) alleged none payment where payment has been tendered;

    (b) alleged late payment where payment has been tendered upon date due;

    (c) falsely alleged shortfalls in payments;

    (d) failure to change payment due date to reflect that not all consumers are paid on regular dates or even the same date as collection is deemed due;

    (e) false entries onto consumer accounts regarding alleged failed payments;

    (f) failure to correct such entries after complaint;

    (g) failure to amortize the debt with payments made over and above the interest due, thus creating a higher level of compound interest over the term of the mortgage and increasing over time the likelihood of default;

    (h) failure to acknowledge consumer complaints;

    (i) failure to respond within a reasonable time scale to consumer complaints;

    (j) failure to comply with Data Protection Subject Access Requests;

    (k) willful ignorance of duties under CPR 31.6 in respect of planned or listed litigation;

    (l) commission of offences against both the Telecommunications Act 2003 and the Harassment Act 1997 in the form of unwarranted and intrusive telephone calls often designed to cause embarrassment for example with frequent calls made to the consumer’s workplace; unlawfully threatening repossession via a telephone call;

    (m) routine monthly access to and entry upon consumers credit reference files;

    (n) Unlawful and punitively raised charges with no prior notification of their application; compound interest applied thereon;

    (o) Failure to provide a breakdown of solicitors cost; dumping said costs onto arrears and applying compound interest thereon;

    (p) undue haste in litigation and claiming to observe the CJC pre action protocols but failing absolutely to do so.

    (q) Threatening consumers with costs which are at the discretion of the court;

    (r) Breaches of the FSMA (2000); Mortgage Conduct of Business (MCOB) rules; the UTCCRs (1999) The Unfair Consumer Practices Directive (2008) and where applicable the Consumer Credit Act (2006); breaches of the criminal law in failure to register that a disposition of land has taken place (s.2 Property Act, 1989, s.127 Land Registry Act 2002); breaches of s.1 and s.5 of the Fraud Act, 2006.

    (s) In litigation, failure to seek possession only as a last resort; failure to serve documents upon the defendant; failure to offer to capitalize genuinely constituted arrears; failure to accept temporarily reduced payments without inferring delinquency; failure to accept payments from customers in arrears where the full alleged arrears is not tendered, failure to refund unlawfully applied charges and compound interest applied; failure to waive charges where a performing arrangement for arrears clearance is in place;

    (t) In suspended cases, the application of charges without notice in excess of the overage paid by consumers to clear their arrears; misrepresentation to the courts that such arrangements will clear the arrears when typically they will not, as a consequence of yet further charges disguised with various nomenclature as arrears management fee, litigation fee, arrears interest, interest charged and so on;

    (u) Willful exaggeration of the consumer’s genuine level of arrears, which may be typically half of the overall total claimed.

    (v) Falsely adding block building insurance to your mortgage account when in receipt of mortgagor’s own building insurance. Then instead of refunding the payments – the monies are used to reduce arrears on the account.

  2. Ziggy Says:

    I’ll reply to this comment later. I’ll have a lot to say about it too. No time at present though.

  3. Securitisation bloke Says:

    All very well, but the lenders who used the securitisation market to lend to sub-prime borrowers did it on the wholly unremarkable basis that they wanted to get their money back at some stage. The fact that they lent to people with poor credit records money was not their fault and was a play on the property market – i.e if / when borrowers defaulted, repossesion was the saviour of the people who financed the loan in the first place. Furthermore, since the non-conforming market was set up in 2003, thousands of people have managed to buy their properties / fund their businesses etc and have then migrated from the specialist lenders into the mainstream banks. It is unfortunate that some remain – now called the zombie borrowers – who cannot refinance. If you can’t pay. don’t borrow. For 15 years or more, the warning is “your house may be repossessed if…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: