I mean it's in last stage. Many previous hearings re claim and d&cc. Points eitherside whittled down. Disclosure of all evidence provided. Statements drafted. This means no new points can be raised. Next should be trial. But lender adjourned trial. They want to discuss settling. As trial is adjourned, there is a possibility to raise new points but only if disclosure provided new crucial evidence.

Ae - thanks for your interest. It's quite overwhelming to keep reiterating the background. I've lived through a lot and put a lot behind me. There is one property - that has unresolved civil litigation. It's been subject to lots of litigation - as explained (LH/FH). I also explained the lender could've sold it immediately. They chose not to. The crux of the remaining litigation is focused on the steps they took and why I shouldn't be liable for their failures. My counterclaim raises issues of criminality. I'm very tired. Exhausted with looking backwards. The trial proceedings are at their end - I am now only trying to figure if I have an alternative angle by way of a separate complaint or claim v receiver AND how I can force a sale before the issue would be dealt with at trial. (Aside: i'm still considering if I can complain v broker AND need to follow up with sra on former lawyer negligence) I'm considering Bazza's comment about fmv - this will present more transparency on the situation

Bazza - fair market value is definitely contentious. Your comment has made me realise I must consider it in detail over the last few years alongside the steps lender/ receiver took. I've made a start

No. Just the one. This was a separate thread that got merged.

Ah - that was another thread that got merged back in 2018 That 'split' doesnt refer to this legal matter

The property was our family home. A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while. Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school) It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply. Nowadays banks don't allow such a mix. (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense. Wanted another btl. Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged. Broker didn't find another btl loan. The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another. I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path. (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'. The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate. That's quite normal. One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first. Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability. The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean. The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!!

Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why? Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.

Lolerz - I don't understand you. Rebuked you? No. I simply replied to your orange comments with legal facts as I know them. I've already worked through the s42 and s146 issues - over the last 3-4y - and these issues are (mostly) resolved legally. In terms of posting evidence. Sure I can post some. But my most recent questions have been a) how can I enforce a sale before trial? And b) how can I make a complaint and/or a claim v receiver? (E.g. to which body do I complain?). At the mo I'm asking for some helpful pointers on those specific questions?? I'm not asking for help with how to prove or present evidence. Fwiw - all evidence for trial has been disclosed (although additions are poss). The lender sent me like 10,000 emails and docs. There's also 000s of emails, docs, photos, videos, recordings and texts that relate to freeholders/ me. I read, filed and categorised everything for ease of future reference. Witness statements and evidence were prepared for trial in the 42 and 146 matters. (now joined with current claim to save duplication). I've lived the process before. My current statement and linked evidence has taken like 6 months to draft/ write - to ensure I can succinctly prove my defence and counterclaim points. Whether I can convince a judge at trial w/o lawyer / barrister is debatable But I've prepared. And continue to try better prepare - which is why I visit this site (and clinics). This is NOT my business or expertise at all. I'm just trying. Not that anyone should ever have to justify why they need help if they ask politely!

This is a ridiculous situation. The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement. I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes. I really want to put this behind me and move on. I can't yet.

ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers. My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.

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. Yes. But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence. Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations 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. The dilapidations notice was a legal first step. Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy. Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work. Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer. The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact. The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed.. But then lender reneged. There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on. Then suddenly demolition works started. Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA. That is eventually what happened. ...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 A s146 was served. It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement. (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). 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. That's not the case One can ask for another extension. In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. Correct. But receiver lawyer was an idiot. He made so many errors. No idea why the receiver instructed him? He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra (though kept his licence). He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension. Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded. In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal issues. Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do). They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way. That didn't happen. They are still trying though. They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay. They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur) Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act. Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then. That action was dealt with yes. But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone. This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out. This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been .... Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? I could. But the evidence is clear cut. Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months has been for ceo to get the property". A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership. They clearly were. And the law firm were complicit. The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest? I also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk. I was never supposed to know about this. But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing". No need to divulge all here. But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo. One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply?

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.

Ae - as I said, the property was under offer and due to exchange 5y ago.

Thanks for jumping in Bazza. I understand that some people would suggest this. But no. The moot point is that there should not be any debt. There shouldn't be any reason for me to be made B. The lender / receiver are responsible for the property not selling in a timely manner. Whoever heard of a (well-located nice) property not selling in >5y? They have no reasons. Disclosure has subsequently offered staggering evidence which corroborates lender bad behaviour, bribery, and collusion/ interference with the receiver. I am holding them to account for this. It is clear they don't want this evidence in the public domain - it will shred their reputation. (One also has to understand that the ceo - with collusion and conflict of interest (using same lawyers as lender) and receiver - tried to get the property cheap for his own use) They now want to agree a settlement. I have separately reported a lawyer for negligence to the LO and SRA. I want to report the receiver as soon as I understand how to. I also would like to find some legal means of getting the property sold.

No