Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

possible barred old mortgage loan


superg
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4096 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys This is a bit of a tricky one well here goes well back in the late 80s my mam and dad bought a house then remortgaged it but the person that did it did it wrong and the money from the old mortgage did not cover it and payments were too high to pay so my parents had to hand over our home. The house was then sold but the company said that my parents owed the rest of money to cover house think this was around 1994.my mam left my father and my self and the company never found my mam,

 

unfortunately my father had a beakdown in 1995 and had shock treatment in a Psychiatric hospitle when my father returned home he was under a nurce that used to check on him as he wasn't very stable anyway one day some men form the mortgage company must have called and make him sign to say that he would pay them money. my mam had calls from them but never replied as she had cancer but an ex solicitor used to reply for her but unfortunately she has just passed away. I have spoken to my father and he said he does not recall signing anything at all even to this day he is very confused I was wondering if these people should have even done this as my father was sectioned under the mental health act

 

The company claim that it may have been barred but my father had signed the form so they can collect the money not sure where i would stand with this he is really worried

 

any advice will be very greatfull

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well providing there's been no payment and no written acknowledgment since 1995 it became unenforceable in 2007. That would seem to be it. I think your local rag might quite like this one.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi thanks for your reply as far as i know these people must have been to my farther house and told him he had to pay this was around 1996 i am not sure on dates but father said he never signed anything but is paying a small amount

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi people as of yet i cant find his paying in book because of the situation but I think i may have taken it to fathers house problem is that my father still isn't too well I don't think he even knew who he was paying the money too my mam must of being paying it out of his money I am not sure but they were divorced so he lives alone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi super G.

 

I am shocked to the core that a DCA would seek to profiteer in these circumstances. This is disgusting. I know DCA's are lower than shark sh*t but....Name and shame. You're in very good hands now that postggj is taking this personally. I wouldn't want to be in that DCAs shoes now!

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It would appear at first view that this is a clear and very nasty case of financial abuse. As you stated your father was sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. As a result of this, and the fact you mentioned your father was very confused, it is safe to assume that he would have been defined, from a health provision perspective, as a vulnerable adult.

 

With this in mind it may be worth contacting your local authority's (council) social services department as they all deal with alleged financial abuse cases. Also, whilst your father was unwell was any power of attorney given to anyone else? If this was the case it would be the person with such power who should've dealt with the DCA rather than your father directly. If power of attorney existed I am sure the DCA would be in breach of at least one rule/law or another.

 

The Mental Capacity Act (2005) may also prove useful in this case. The act was established to protect the interests of vulnerable persons and allow them to make informed decisions for as long as they are able.

In this case it appears that your father was unable to make an informed decision due to mental health problems at that time, and thus it is likely the DCA commited an offence under the act by 'ill treatment' of someone who lacks capacity under the act.

 

Having read this post I don't think that I am alone in thinking how disgracful and immorale the actions of the DCA are. I work at a psyciatric hospital for persons detained under the mental health act 1983 so have access to a variety of information and implications of the two acts I have mentioned. I'll help in any way I can so feel free to contact me if I can be of any further help.

 

Wishing your father and you all the best with this awful and unacceptable situation.

 

BiGaD09

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello BiGaD09

 

Thanks for your reply this is very useful information That you have provided There is something that i am confused about. when my father had a breakdown the doctor came to the house and he said that you need to go to hospital and asked if my father was ok going there himself as his friend offered to take him the doctor agreed this was ok. would this mean my father was Voluntary admitted to hospital. while in there he received ect shock treatment on his return home he had some care people come to visit him and ask questions and things some sort of nurse. in the mean time i have not paid the money to them and my father doesn't know how to. I know that he did send the dca a doctors letter stating his frame of mind not sure what letter he received from them .

 

Thanks superg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my considered opinion that this predatory ****** DCA needs naming and shaming. However see what more senior caggers than myself think before doing so.

 

Good luck with these hideous parasites.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello BiGaD09

*

Thanks for your reply this is very useful information That you have provided There is something that i am confused about. when my father had a breakdown the doctor came to the house and he said that you need to go to hospital and asked if my father was ok going there himself as his friend offered to take him the doctor agreed this was ok. would this mean my father was Voluntary admitted to hospital. while in there he received ect shock treatment on his return home he had some care people come to visit him and ask questions and things some sort of nurse. in the mean time i have not paid the money to them and my father doesn't know how to. I know that he did send the dca a doctors letter stating his frame of mind not sure what letter he received from them .

*

Thanks superg

*

Your father would have been classed as an informal admission. The Mental Health Act 1983 would still apply but without a few of the articles in it such as mental health review tribunals for example which deal with patients contesting their detainment.

The fundamental part of the act in this instance is part VII Management of Property and Affairs of Patients. This relates to all patients whether detained, informally admitted or in community settings. This part was repealled by the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 under which your father would have been legally protected from actions such as this. Offences under the act can result in fines and even imprisonment upon conviction.

 

 

In this case the best advice I can give is to seek legal advice in relation to a breach of the Mental Capacity/ Mental Health Act. It is my honestly held belief that an offence has been commited in this case and that the cost of any proceedings arising would be eligable for legal aid. A solicitor would be the best option for dealing with the DCA and I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that a conviction against the DCA or it's employees would arise as a result.

 

 

BiGaD09

Link to post
Share on other sites

SuperG

 

Name and Shame this DCA NOW! Post it on open. If postggj with over 10,000 posts on this site says it's OK to do so then I'm sure it is. This very act alone will probably get them to back off, and give you some breathing space to sort it out properly. It might also give your dad the reassurance that he need not worry.

 

Please keep your calm. You're amongst friends now.

 

Just want to add my very warm felt thanks to Big AD09 for highlighting the relevant law in this regard. Small work makes big heroes and destroys injustice. 5 posts in and in my view your are a legend already.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry is it DLC/Hillesden for sure.? I missed those earlier posts.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi in 1995/1996 the debt was in the time limit thats why i think they come to the house and obtained my dads signature but at the time I am not sure what company this was hope this helps my father cant remember anyone calling at his home there was a letter some where saying that because my father had signed the form that he had started the debt back off again

Edited by superg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he have capacity, did he know what he was signing?? If the answer is no then the agreement is void. Obtain the medical evidence that he didn't have capacity or at least he was very ill at the time then tell them to get lost

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have broken the law, but apart from that, the following is taken from the OFT debt collection guidance July 2003, updated December 2006. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

 

Debt collection visits

2.11 Those visiting debtors must not act in an unclear or threatening manner.

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely

stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

b. visiting a debtor when it is known they are vulnerable, for example, when

a doctor's certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill

c. continuing with a visit when it becomes apparent that the debtor is

distressed or otherwise vulnerable, for example, it becomes apparent that

the debtor has mental health problems

d. entering a property uninvited

e. not leaving a property when asked to

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

 

debt is deadlocked or disputed

1

g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit

2

h visiting debtors, unless requested, at inappropriate locations such as work

or hospital.

1

Edited by 389shell
Highlighting relevant info

PLEASE DONATE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN

 

 

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

 

 

 

 

Go on, click me scales (if I have helped) :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted in error

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi all Just to keep you all updated my father has been phoned by this dca not sure what he said ,but the original creditor has contacted him via phone and letter they are called Bradford & Bingley they say they want payment from him but he doesn't know what to do is there any letter to send him also I am not sure if it was the dca who got his signature or Bradford & Bingley I know that these people are in the wrong just have not got a clue where to start with it

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...