Posts Tagged ‘Fraud’

MONEY CREATION DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

November 21, 2014

READ HOW MPs DISCUSS HOW GREEDY, DISHONEST, FRAUDULENT  AND DESTRUCTIVE THE BANKING INDUSTRY IS

 

MONEY CREATION DEBATE PARLIAMENT

COMMONS Thursday November 20th 2014

FROM HANSARD – Read the full debate from the link below:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0001.htm#14112048000001

SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE DEBATE

HANSARD 20 Nov 2014 : Column 434

Backbench Business

Money Creation and Society

11.18 am

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House has considered money creation and society.

The methods of money production in society today are profoundly corrupting in ways that would matter to everyone if they were clearly understood. The essence of this debate is: who should be allowed to create money, how and at whose risk?………

……One of the most memorable quotes about money and banking is usually attributed to Henry Ford:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”………..

How is it done? The process is so simple that the mind is repelled. It is this:

“Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”

I have been told many times that this is ridiculous, even by one employee who had previously worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the United States. The explanation is taken from the Bank of England article, “Money creation in the modern economy”, and it seems to me it is rather hard to dismiss……..

It is a criminal offence to counterfeit bank notes or coins, but a banking licence is formal permission from the Government to create equivalent money at interest…….

There is a wide range of perspectives on whether that is legitimate. The Spanish economist, Jesús Huerta de Soto explains in his book “Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles” that it is positively a fraud—a fraud that causes the business cycle. Positive Money, a British campaign group, is campaigning for the complete nationalisation of money production……..

We are in a debt crisis of historic proportions because for far too long profit-maximising banks have been lending money into existence as debt with too few effective restraints on their conduct and all the risks of doing so forced on the taxpayer by the power of the state. A blend of legal privilege, private interest and political necessity has created, over the centuries, a system that today lawfully promotes the excesses for which capitalism is so frequently condemned. It is undermining faith in the market economy on which we rely not merely for our prosperity, but for our lives………….

Even before quantitative easing began, we lived in an era of chronic monetary inflation, unprecedented in the industrial age. Between 1991 and 2009, the money supply increased fourfold. It tripled between 1997 and 2010, from £700 billion to £2.2 trillion, and that accelerated into the crisis. It is simply not possible to increase the money supply at such a rate without profound consequences, and they are the consequences that are with us today, but it goes back further. The House of Commons Library and the Office for National Statistics produced a paper tracing consumer price inflation back to 1750. It shows that there was a flat line until about the 20th century, when there was some inflation over the wars, but from 1971 onwards, the value of money collapsed. What had happened?…….

where did all the money that was created as debt go? The sectoral lending figures show that while some of it went into commercial property, and some into personal loans, credit cards and so on, the rise of lending into real productive businesses excluding the financial sector was relatively moderate. Overwhelmingly, the new debt went into mortgages and the financial sector…….

Money is used to buy houses, and we

20 Nov 2014 : Column 438

should not be at all surprised that an increased supply of money into house-buying will boost the price of those homes…………

My point is that if a great fountain of new money gushes up into the financial sector, we should not be surprised to find that the banking system is far wealthier than anyone else. We should not be surprised if financing and housing in London and the south-east are far wealthier than anywhere else. Indeed, I remember that when quantitative easing began, house prices started rising in Chiswick and Islington. Money is not neutral. It redistributes real income from later to earlier owners—that is, from the poor to the rich, on the whole…………

Once the Bank legitimises the idea of money creation and giving it to people in order to get the economy going, the question then arises: if you are going to create it and give it away, why not give it to other people? That then goes to the question: what is money? I think it is the basis of a moral existence, because in our lives we should be exchanging value for value. One problem with the current system is that we are not doing that; something is being created in vast quantities out of nothing and given away. The Bank explains that 40% of the assets that have been inflated are held by 5% of households, with 80% held by people over 45. It seems clear that QE—a policy of the state to intervene deeply in money—is a deliberate policy of increasing the wealth of people who are older and wealthier.

Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. Does he agree that, far from shoring up free market capitalism, the candy floss credit system the state is presiding over replaces it with a system of crony corporatism that gives capitalism a bad name and undermines its very foundations?

Steve Baker: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend—he is that, despite the fact I will not be seeing Nigel later. We have ended up pretending that the banking system and the financial system is a free market when the truth is that it is the most hideous corporatist mess. What I want is a free market banking system, and I will come on to discuss that.

11.45 am

Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab):

It is unfortunate that it is so little understood by the public that money is created by the banks every time they make a loan. In effect, the banks have a virtual monopoly—about 97%—over domestic credit creation, so they determine how money is allocated across the economy. That has led to the vast majority of money being channelled into property markets and the financial sector. According to Bank of England figures for the decade to 2007, 31% of additional money created by bank lending went to mortgage lending, 20% to commercial property, and 32% to the financial sector, including to mergers and acquisitions and trading and financial markets. Those are extraordinary figures…

……the overwhelming majority of the money created inflates property prices, pushing up the cost of living.

In a nutshell, the banks have too much power and they have greatly abused it. First, they have been granted enormous privileges since they can create wealth simply by writing an accounting entry on a register. They decide who uses that wealth and for what purpose and they have used their power of credit creation hugely to favour property and consumption lending over business investment because the returns are higher and more secure. Thus the banks maximise their own interests but not the national interest.

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, is there not an argument, in this situation of unlimited credit from banks, for the Bank of England to intervene?

Mr Meacher: My hon. Friend anticipates the main line of my argument, so if he is patient I think I will be able to satisfy him. Crucially, only 8% of the money referred to went to businesses outside the financial sector, with a further 8% funding credit cards and personal loans….

…..The question at the heart of the debate is who should create the money? Would Parliament ever have voted to delegate power to create money to those same banks that caused the horrendous financial crisis that the world is still suffering? I think the answer is unambiguously no. The question that needs to be put is how we should achieve the switch from unbridled consumerism to a framework of productive investment capable of generating a successful and sustainable manufacturing and industrial base that can securely underpin UK living standards….

…Under the current system, around just 80 board members across the largest five banks make decisions that shape the entire UK economy, even though these individuals have no obligation or mandate to consider the needs of society or the economy as a whole, and are not accountable in any way to the public: it is for the maximisation of their own interests, not the national interest. Under sovereign money, the money creation committee would be highly transparent—we have discussed this already—and accountable to Parliament.

Mr MacNeil: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about money going into building, housing and mortgages, but is that not because the holders of money reckon that they can get a decent return from that sector? They would invest elsewhere if they thought that they could get a better return. One reason why the UK gets a better return from that area than, say, Germany is that we have no rent controls. As a result, money is more likely to go into property than into developing industry, which is more likely to happen in Germany.

Mr Meacher: 

…………………..The question at the heart of the debate is who should create the money? Would Parliament ever have voted to delegate power to create money to those same banks that caused the horrendous financial crisis that the world is still suffering? I think the answer is unambiguously no.

For all those reasons, the examination of the merits of a sovereign monetary system is now urgently needed, and I call on the Government to set up a commission on money and credit, with particular reference to the potential benefits of sovereign money, which offers a way out of

20 Nov 2014 : Column 449

the continuing and worsening financial crises that have blighted this country and the whole international economy for decades……..

12.13 pm

Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): 

…………A lot has been made of the ignorance of Members of Parliament of how money is created. I suspect that that ignorance, not just in Members of Parliament but in the intellectual elite in this country, explains many things, not least why we entered the financial crisis with a regulatory system that was so unprepared for a banking crisis……….

First, all bankers—not just rogue bankers but even the best, the most honourable and the most honest—do things that would land the rest of us in jail. Near my house in France is a large grain silo. After the harvest, farmers deposit grain in it. The silo gives them a certificate for every tonne of grain that they deposit. They can withdraw that amount of grain whenever they want by presenting that certificate. If the silo owner issued more certificates than there was grain kept in his silo, he would go to jail, but that is effectively what bankers do. They keep as reserves only a fraction of the money deposited with them, which is why we call the system the fractional reserve banking system. Murray Rothbard, a much neglected Austrian economist in this country, said very flatly that banking is therefore fraud: fractional reserve banking is fraud; it should be outlawed; banks should be required to keep 100% reserves against the money they lend out. ……….

If a bank lends a company £10 million, it does not need to go and borrow that money from a saver; it simply creates an extra £10 million by electronically crediting the company’s bank account with that sum. It creates £10 million out of thin air. By contrast, when a bank loan is repaid, that extinguishes money; it disappears into thin air. The total money supply increases when banks create new loans faster than old loans are repaid…….

spivs and crooks have a field day.”—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Does that mean that the banks are uncontrollable, as things stand?

 

 

Advertisements

GOVERNMENT INSPIRED FRAUD

October 26, 2013

SNOOPING COUNCILS ARE ALSO JUST PLAIN CORRUPT & EVIL

YES, THIS IS THE UK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

I can top the story ‘Council Snoopers Check if Elderly Transfer Homes to Avoid Care fees’ (Daily Telegraph October 19 2013) with what is probably a nastier abuse of public office by councils I have experienced.

I became a single parent, entirely reliant on the benefit system because the mother of my baby son became acutely mentally ill with schizophrenia on his birth, causing maximum disruption to our lives.

Instead of the benefits system providing a ‘safety net’ enabling families to survive difficult circumstances, the maladministration of it systematically  destroyed our lives a little bit more every year, causing me to lose my house when it should never have been lost, for instance.

Finally becoming homeless in 2011 and evicted at only 24 hours notice by the fraudulent, dishonest Lehmans Bank’s equally fraudulent subsidiary mortgage lender SPML, the local council said it was not obliged to fulfill it’s statutory legal obligation of housing my son and me on the grounds that I was ‘Intentionally homeless’ because, in their view, I ‘should never have bought my house nine years previously because’,  the  council housing official said, ‘I’m gobsmacked you bought a house. As a single parent of your age, you should have realised you would never be able to work again’. This is a direct quote.

The poisonous council housing official said that it was her opinion that what I should have done was, instead of spending the £80 000 cash I had left from the forced sale of a previous, larger house (sold to avoid re-possession) to buy another one, I should have spent the £80k on renting a property. Then, when all that money ran out, I would have been able to claim the housing benefit allowance to pay the rent and therefore I would not have become homeless.

I was supposed  by this screamingly stupid person to have this gift of clairvoyance which if applied to everyone would require that no person should ever ‘take the risk’ of buying a house in case some time in the future unforeseen circumstances prevent them from earning an income and they cannot pay their mortgage which will inevitably lead to eviction – and it’s all their own fault for not being able to see into the future.

I was specifically told that I should have known that is what I should have done, rather than buy my own house ! It was made clear to me that the council official thought I had done something ‘wrong’ buying a house and she personally  disapproved of me buying a house and she had the opinion I should have rented accommodation and that is what she would have done, she said.

Therefore, this idiot continued, when I bought my house I would have known that because I would never work again I could not pay my mortgage and that would eventually cause me to be evicted (nine years later) & therefore I had willfully and deliberately caused my own eviction  thereby fulfilling the legal definition of being ‘Intentionally homeless’ by deliberately doing, or failing to do something that ultimately caused my homelessness.

This is a legal construct which allows councils to label a homeless person a ‘willful wrongdoer’ who because they made themselves deliberately homeless, does not deserve the support of the housing & benefits legislation designed to support people in statutory need.

While it may be reasonable to have the concept of being ‘deliberately homeless’ available so that it may be properly used to prevent obvious abuses of the social housing system, the sort of circumstances described above are a clear and quite ludicrous abuse of law. It seems impossible to imagine any court could allow this obvious abuse.

This is also not a unique case. I have come across many other examples of this legal point being mis-used and abused on a regular basis by many local councils up and down the country to enable them to avoid housing people they are legally obliged to house under Parliamentary legislation.

The completely sick joke about it all is that all of this is driven by the simple lack of having sufficient money in relevant housing budgets to properly deal with whatever housing issues need dealing with according to the law as it stands. But Government expenditure actually rises exponentially as a direct result of maladministration like this.

By mis-using and abusing law to weasel out of housing people in need just to apparently to save money, it actually ends up costing a vast amount more money because the State simply ends up spending much, much more money dealing with the various consequences resulting from people being made entirely homeless by a vindictive, deceitful & downright wicked State. This is demonstrated again and again by the disgusting behaviour of dim and small minded Government officials in both Central Government and in particular Local Councils who just make up the rules as they go along to suit their own warped minds.

So, in my particular case, no money whatever was actually saved by failing to obey the law which said the local council had a legal obligation to house a child & parent made street homeless overnight by a rapacious and dishonest and fraudulent mortgage lender.

My son and I spent over seven months in slum-like bed & breakfast accommodation in a cosy arrangement with Pakistani owners and the council which paid them about £1500 a month. I was told by one of these Pakistani’s colleagues how he also had a lucrative sideline in various criminal activities, including the criminal importing & exporting of empty container loads of wine to falsely evade & reclaim VAT and other customs duties.

Then there were other, huge, but not easily identified expenditures as a vast job creation scheme swung into action to gobble up thousands of hours of social services and council employees time dealing with all the ‘meetings’ ‘reports’ writing and box ticking that went on to deal with this ‘case’ which still rumbles on and looks set to continue rumbling on to infinity.

Finally, Government money is now being spent on paying an extortionate, unnaturally inflated rent to my private landlord who happens to be a banker, to pay his mortgage on the house I now live in, so he may become even richer by having the State buy him a house to rent out.

This house could, instead, be owned by the State, rather than a private banker landlord on the make and would then result in a mere fraction of the money that is being spent by this incompetent State maladministration being needed.

This particular maladministration of a housing issue I have personally experienced & described above comes at the end of a long catalogue of other abuses from my local council which include the ‘snooping’ whereby they discovered I was a company director by virtue of me having spent £20 on the paperwork of setting up a Ltd company with a view to becoming self employed in the future.

The council used this information (gained only by a ‘snooping’ process) to confabulate it into the idea of me earning money so justifying them to withhold council tax benefits and never repay what they wrongly/illegally withheld, thereby successfully milking me of some thousands of pounds from my sole income of single parent benefits.

It all quite takes your breath away really.

UNSCRUPULOUS, FRAUDULENT INTERNET GAME CONS £1700 FROM PARENTS

March 1, 2013

March 1st 2013

A news item today announced that a five year old boy from Bristol had shocked his parents rigid by running up a bill of about £1700 on their mobile iPad playing one of those silly games on the internet.

According to the news item the game had said it was free and so the boy’s dad organised the game to download for his son.

But the Dad later found out that a charge of £1700 had been incurred for the ‘purchase of bombs and things’. The ITV journalist covering the story hadn’t bothered to tell the real story, instead just focussing on the cute little five year old and a bemused father as though it was all the fault of the cute five year old and how generous the Apple Computer people were because they had promised to pay the bill for the parents and so no real harm had been done.

It didn’t seem to occur to the journalist that it might seem a bit odd for Apple Computers, who also made the iPad used to download this silly game from the internet, to want to pay for this. What could their motive be, I wondered on behalf of the rather lazy TV journalist who clearly hadn’t done any wondering herself !

The real story, of course, is that (more…)

THE NASTY, ABUSIVE HELL OF COMPUTERISED SWITCHBOARDS

April 12, 2012

USED TO MANIPULATE CUSTOMERS

Dear BT,

I received a fraudulent email pretending to be from BT today which I copy below.

It is remarkably effective as a means of persuading people to respond to it and will dupe a lot of people; so I thought I ought to report it to BT to enable you to both stop it and issue a warning, which seems to me to be unavoidably necessary.

I was rewarded for my efforts by your unbelievably offensive computerised switchboard and three different operators all mis -informing me and fobbing me off in their different ways and making me wait 35 minutes without getting anywhere before I finally gave up.

My previous experiences of attempting to contact BT concerning all sorts of different issues have also met with similar and even worse results.

On one occasion it took me seven hours of being on the phone to BT to persuade BT to retrieve my account from rival Talk Talk who had fraudulently transferred my BT account to themselves and in the process cut off my BT broadband account, depriving me of access to the internet.

Your computerised switchboard and your operators ( who are badly trained and supervised and frequently thoroughly offensively behaved, partly due to ridiculous BT pressures placed on them) are both disgustingly offensive and unpleasant to deal with. No business should behave in this way towards its customers. If the general standards of customer service were not so appalling in the UK you would rapidly lose most of your customers to better suppliers, and no doubt you will do in the fullness of time.

I certainly will leave BT for the above reasons as soon as I possibly can.

Yours Sincerely

Below is the fraudulent email. Fraud and the internet go hand and hand. Fraud from con-merchants trying to steal money from your bank and more subtle frauds and manipulations from legitimate businesses that inflict miseries like computerised switchboards on their customers while making fraudulent claims about how necessary and even helpful such systems are.

From: btaccountclosure@live.com
Subject: WARNING NOTICE from the BTinternet Services Security Center
Date: 11 April 2012 00:44:18 BDT
To: btaccountclosure@live.com

Dear Valued Member,

This is for your own safety to avoid the closure of your BT internet mail. You will have to verify your account by filling out your Log-in information below by clicking the reply button. We apologize for any inconvenience that this request may cause.

User ID:
Current Password:
Re confirm password:
Occupation:
Date of Birth:
Country of Residence:

After receiving the information requested you will be able to continue using your BT internet mail without hitches. Please do bear in mind that we reserve the right to close this BT internet account if this request isn’t granted on time.

Thank you.
BT internet Customer Care.
Case number: 8941624
Property: Account Security

Copyright © 2011 BT internet Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2011 BT internet Inc. All rights reserved

UNDERSTANDING THE REASON FOR OUR ECONOMIC MELTDOWN – AND IT WILL GET WORSE !

August 8, 2011

THE SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF HOW THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT CRISIS EXISTS AND WHAT CAUSED IT

Understanding the reasons for the Worldwide economic meltdown are not easy. This is only because the banking world wrap even the simplest of ideas in gobbledegook language no one else outside the financial industry usually understands.

That is because they don’t want anyone else to understand it, otherwise finance would lose it’s mystique and bankers would lose their sinister hold over everyone else. So, all we have to do is unwrap all this gobbledegook and use plain language instead.

let’s get straight to the point. Amongst all that pompous financial verbiage wittered by all those self important bankers is this simple truth.

If nobody had ever borrowed a penny from anyone else, and everyone had always paid for everything they had purchased only with money already in their possession, nobody anywhere would owe any money to anyone else at all.

If that was the case, and it is only an imaginary idea just to illustrate exactly where this awful financial armageddon came from which is destroying the World economy right now, then there would be absolutely no credit crisis and no financial meltdown. It would simply be impossible ! Everybody would be in complete control of their finances !

There would be no loss of jobs and no increase in poverty and no meaningful inflation either. No governments would be going bust or falling apart at the seams in their desperate attempts to be able to pay all their debts.

Everyone – governments, businesses and individuals would be in complete control of their financial lives because they would have no debts to pay. Therefore no one else would have any control over anyone else and be able to interfere in their lives and even destroy them because they owed money to the interferer.

Debt makes the person borrowing the money beholden to the lender. The borrower immediately loses control of their own lives when they borrow money.

A government, individual, business or bank which depends for survival by always being able to borrow money from someone else is not only permanently in the control of whoever lends them money, but is always a hairsbreadth away from complete annihilation if nobody is willing to lend them money anymore.

And that is exactly what has happened. The banks have gradually engineered a vice like grip over every financial transaction. They have also successfully brainwashed most of humanity into believing that borrowing nearly all the money needed for trading with each other is the proper way to conduct financial affairs whether you are a business, government or individual.

Of course it is the banks that lend the money, which is why they want everyone to believe that borrowing money for everything is the right way to do things. It is also a curious fact that people lending others money think they have a right to tell the borrower what to do and what not to do, generally boss them about and tell them how to conduct their lives – particularly when it comes to how to organise the money borrowed.

The present financial crisis arose quite simply because with everyone borrowing more and more money as the banks wished and duly persuaded them, more and more control of everyday life went from businesses, individuals and governments into the hands of the banks. And the only thing the banks knew or cared about was making more and more money for themselves.

Then the same problem of loss of control hit the banks too. This first of all happened to Lehmann’s bank in 2008 when it suddenly discovered that it could no longer borrow money from other banks to pay for what Lehmanns owed to others.

Other banks didn’t want to lend to Lehmanns because they had observed Lehmanns becoming more and more greedy, dishonest and devious with increasing suspicions of fraud as well. Lehmanns were at the forefront of driving the concept of borrowing into an arcane stratosphere of unreality where they contrived to lend the same bit of money again, and again and again – all at the same time; Lehmanns conjured up an idea where the same money could be lent almost an unlimited amount of times all at once.

When Lehmanns discovered no one else wanted to lend them any more money, that in turn meant Lehmanns couldn’t pay money it owed to other banks. Those other banks then found they, in turn, hadn’t got enough money to pay their creditors either. And so the whole sorry merry-go-round of financial industry fictional fantasy money created out of thin air collapsed. All because everyone owed everyone else ever increasing amounts of money and no longer had any control over their own financial lives.

This whole rotten edifice has been crumbling ever since Lehmanns went bust and everyone found out mendacity, fraud and corruption were rampant in the financial industry, nowhere more so than in the banks.

Banks have effectively destroyed money by completely debasing it; turning it on it’s head and making it into debt instead of money. This has resulted in the banks controlling every aspect of all of our financial lives, taking away our own ability to manage our affairs efficiently.

This is why there is a Wordwide economic meltdown of nightmarish proportions.

Quite simply, banks have succeeded in destroying the money we all need to conduct any form of trading because they turned it all into debt instead of real money. and now everyone is finding it increasingly impossible to pay it all back as the debt just gets uncontrolably bigger and bigger.

Revealed: Reckless UK lending of Lehman arm

March 9, 2011

RECKLESS AND RUTHLESS: Files show how aggressive lenders peddled mortgages borrowers couldn’t afford and pursued them when they failed to meet payments

By Richard Dyson of the Daily Mail – This is Money

5 March 2011

Aggressive mortgage lending to high-risk borrowers by a British subsidiary of defunct US investment bank Lehman Brothers at the height of the property boom has been fully revealed for the first time in files obtained by Financial Mail.

These relate to almost 10,000 mortgages advanced in 2006 by Southern Pacific Mortgage Loans. The loans were quickly sold to investors.

This process, on a global scale, triggered Lehman’s collapse in September 2008 and was central to the banking crisis.

Investors were persuaded to buy mortgages because they would, supposedly, earn a regular income from the interest paid by borrowers, as well as have security over the property.

Even before the crisis, SPML raised eyebrows for its lax lending. But the scale of recklessness is made public here for the first time.

Our analysis of SPML’s 2006 lending has found that three out of five mortgages were ‘liar loans’ – offered on a ‘self-certified’ basis where borrowers were not required to prove their income. A third of the mortgages were interest-only, where capital does not have to be repaid until the end of the mortgage term.

One in five borrowers had court judgments against them for uncleared debt elsewhere, averaging £4,400, at the time the mortgages were lent. Mainstream lenders will not advance mortgages to someone with a court judgment who has not paid off the debt.

Two in five of the loans were for 80% of the property’s value or more, with some mortgages equating to as much as 95%. Compare this, for example, with a conservative lender such as Nationwide Building Society, whose average outstanding loan is for less than half the value of the property it is secured against.

The data also gives a shocking, if unsurprising, picture of how quickly SPML’s borrowers fell into difficulty.

By March 2009, of SPML’s mortgages originally lent in 2006 and still in force, 40% were three months or more in arrears. Almost 10% were over 12 months in arrears.


Silent: Acenden’s Amany Attia

Scores of mortgages had been in arrears for more than 24 months, indicating that some borrowers fell behind as soon as the money was lent. Citizens Advice describes this lending as ‘set up to fail’ – with lenders cynically advancing money in the knowledge that borrowers couldn’t afford the repayments.

Interest rates on remaining SPML mortgages dating from 2006 now average 7.09%, but some unlucky borrowers are paying more than 16%. Two in five borrowers pay 10% or higher.

The files also reveal how relentlessly SPML borrowers have been pursued through the courts, frequently losing their homes. Of borrowers-whose 2006 mortgages remain in force, almost 40% have had some form of litigation brought against them by the business that administers SPML’s remaining loans.

This business is called Acenden, but is better known – and reviled by borrowers – as Capstone, a name it ditched last year in a bid to reinvent itself. Capstone was owned by Lehman until the bank’s collapse.

Today, Acenden is profitable and managed, and part-owned, by former Lehman bankers who spearheaded the original lending. This includes Acenden chief executive Amany Attia, who came to Britain in 2001 to introduce Lehman’s discredited US mortgage lending processes in this country. She declined to comment.

The data that Financial Mail has analysed relates to just one tranche of SPML’s lending, but is representative of the billions of pounds lent by SPML and equivalent businesses. Acenden refuses to publish the numbers of repossessions it has secured relating to the mortgages it administers.

However, it is estimated by Citizens Advice, for instance, that such lenders seek ten times the number of repossessions sought by mainstream lenders, even though their share of the total mortgage market is about one twentieth.

Forgery victim’s five-year ordeal (more…)