Maybe. But 2nd charge holder doesn't know the situation Can a 2nd charge holder apply to the court asking for an order for sale when the property is under a receiver?

see post #425 above: I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't. Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property. Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale ... could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead? It would certainly side swipe the lender and receiver if this other entity did this

thanks ae - yes I understand the claims are between me and the lender. But with regards to the order for sale the judge specifically said it is the receiver who is appointed to sell - and he hasn't/ and isn't - which is why I am asking if I can apply to the court v the receiver for an order for sale right now? The receiver is not part of the current proceedings heading to trial. But he is responsible for selling the property - and he has consistently rejected offers over >5y. This is specifically why I would like to understand if I can apply to the court to enforce the sale by the receiver??? As above - The judge has said otherwise the order for sale v the lender has to be dealt with via the trial. Which they have deliberately delayed via the adjournment. Valuation is an issue. The lender chose the valuer. I paid but his report basically belongs to and is referred to by the lender. He did a prof valuation without doing a site visit. He had done a site visit 5 months earlier for different potential lender. The 1st valuation he erroneously wrote in his report as fh. He just did a re-write 5m later - but wrote in his report that the value was the same for lh. I had a great offer on the table from a niche buyer which would have cleared the loan and given me a lot of £s. But the lender rushed through the repo and the buyer got spooked and ran. The lender then slashed the price by 30%+ from their valuation (fire sale price?). As you suggest - they fully expected potential buyers to quickly grab the property at such a discount. But it turned out they couldn't. The market had dropped anyway. Then covid hit. Every potential buyer was questioning the valuation (which clearly was wrong but the lender had accepted). The lender and receivers actions have eroded the equity. This wouldn't make sense to any normal lender. 99.9% would have just sold to the 1st buyer willing to transact. The lender/ receiver had such a willing buyer on day 1 of marketing. But they spent 15months trying not to sell to them. As I said, disclosure shows the ceo wanted (wants?) to keep it for himself - so common sense didn't (doesn't) prevail. The lender has made a £ Claim v me. I am disputing it because I maintain it is their actions that has caused the erosion of equity/ a debt to accrue. The lender's problem now is that they have spent so much money and added so much interest over 5y that they cannot sell the property for what they need/ want. They are trying to blame me for this. But it is their fault; not mine - because I am not in possession or in charge of selling it. As I also said above - if there is some legal reason why I cannot make an application to the court for an order for the receiver to sell - then can I ask the other entity which has a charging order and threatened to do so ??? I will contact this other entity only if I can't make an app to sell v the receiver

LPA. (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done). He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh). There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice. Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'. He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer. Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer. Notice failed, buyer didn't buy. So receiver stayed. There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them! Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost. But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs. Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'. And he did fail. But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works. Receiver should have said no. But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?) I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'. Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell. The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations). The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver. That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides). Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions. Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed. Receiver remained appointed. I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties. Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works. Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before. The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale. But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price. It's now completely overpriced. And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist. The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property. Before works this agent had valued it low. After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher! The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent. No offers. (Price way too high). Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died. I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back? Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago. Receiver rejected it. (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22. The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial. It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?

I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this. I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y. I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial. This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell. At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer. But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver? On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions. I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???. However the judge's comment has got me thinking. He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me. Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective). So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver? Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer). Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property. The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly. After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property. My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house). Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest. The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held. The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago. And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent. Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ?? Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?

HB -Yes - I want to assess how I make a claim v broker. I have found a letter I wrote to the broker which was entitled 'formal complaint'. What I havent found yet is their reply. If I can't find it then I will send in another SAR as advised above

Hb - I have enough evidence to verify what broker did wrong Ae - I was told by friend broker that the broker ought to have been able with their experience to obtain a btl on low interest. That's the issue. Ought. But didnt Valuation - that's an interesting point. Borrowers have no choice but have to pay for the report. I'd used a firm before (for diff poss lender) and the broker/ lender advised to use same valuation firm. The valuer did not do another site visit. He rewrote an earlier one. He used the same valuation figure for writing the earlier report as a potential FH tenure but changed the tenure to LH (which is what the charge was to be for). That turned out to be an issue - as the next valuation the lender did post repo was 30% lower.

the rental prohibition was because the broker added the 'exit strategy' was sale. He knew I wanted a btl. He rushed the bridge through and I agreed. It solved a pressing issue of possible repo from existing lender - but actually made the situation worse. The broker then abandoned me. No btl. Forced to sell. And just couldn't. Price? Had 1 offer in 1y. Had various interest in 2nd year - but no-one proceeded to exchange. Had firm commitment at good good price in 3rd year - but that fell away due to repo. The lender has failed to sell in the last 5y. They had an immediate opportunity - but chose to follow a different path - which has led to it still unsold after a further 5y+ (and a host of legal claims to boot)

It was a debate with the broker at the time. the property was classed as a family home, with additional rental history - not business. In the year the broker found a btl lender at 2.49% I did have a tenant for some months and I was located - on/off - in a different part of the country for work and into the next year too - in company paid -for accommodation. With the increase of loan I would have had to full-time rent out the property and live elsewhere. But that was fine. (I had plans) The problem was that the broker put me with a bridge that prohibited rentals - so I couldn't rent/ had to sell. And then I had no income. Rules changed - to get a btl I needed a tenant in situ, but I couldn't because of the bridge. catch22. Broker was appointed to find a btl. He then passed me to a colleague to fix a bridge. I didn't want a bridge. Even when I was 'forced' to take the bridge I wanted broker to help me switch immediately to a btl. The trouble is that I then discovered lenders don't like to lend to someone on a bridge. And the broker avoided all my calls. I have records of this. For example, his work colleague told me he was out the office all day. Yet a kid was put straight through to the broker. Kid handed phone over to me and I was then able to speak (very awkward for broker). But he/ the firm still did nothing. The problem was that the bridge had created a barrier to any other lender and was monthly increasing the loan by a huge sum. Its been a disaster. I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't. The property was repossessed; the lender hasn't sold. That's >7y on a short-term bridge - for which the lender is still holding me accountable. The broker's t&cs showed they had 'advised me' - but they didn't follow the strict protocol to have been able to advise me. The broker filled in the application form on my behalf. I never saw it. He just emailed me the signature page. He did not carry out checks on my income or affordability etc. I had a lawyer who had handled the lease extension. I asked them to handle the refinance because I needed a lawyer. I think the focus of any potential complaint is about the lack of advice the broker gave when their paperwork stated they gave it. I do have legal issues with the lender's subsequent behaviour - but that is separate.

Hi. Sorry for the misunderstanding I already owned the property - had done for a very long time. The refinance was tied into a s.42 extension. I had had an old very flexible and accommodating BTL loan - as in the bank lent btl money on a short lease property which had been empty for 2 decades+ and was dilapidated and which they knew couldn't be rented out for ages! The banks stopped loans like that a long time ago. Took a couple years to renovate whilst living on the building site. Then rented it to a family for a while whilst went away. Then moved back in and ad hoc rented it (enough to pay mortgage, bills, live well and pay the tax) / lived in it as a family home for well more than a decade. We stayed somewhere else for free when it was rented out/ or went traveling. The extension cost a lot more than expected. But I still wanted a btl and to keep it not sell it. Ltv was very low. The extension cost made it higher. But there was still tons of equity. The historic rentals proved it was a good rental property. The renowned professional broker should have been able to get me a btl. It was high value; a lovely property. I get I made mistakes. But I got royally screwed on the refinance. And everything kinda unraveled thereafter. When I look through the paperwork now in hindsight I am horrified at the amount of money I was charged by alleged professionals. It's all such a racket. (The extension process, the valuation, the broker - all money for old rope for these companies). In my defence my mistakes boiled down to losing my partner and being not right in the head for ages and ages. (This horrid repo process has also contributed to me not being right in the head - but I'm not blind anymore). I'm not sure what I want to do now? Or what I could even begin to hope for as a result? I just feel that I may well have an issue against the broker - because they didn't follow their industry strict protocol.

Thanks. Will check info later

I just checked the last email from them that I printed out. It was directing me to a link to files as part of a data SAR (which I never called my request; they did). The email says the link would expire in 3 months. Now my computer crashed later in 19. I lost a lot of info. I need to check storage for old hard-drives to see if I downloaded and saved whatever info was in the link. I have 1 other printed out email from my friend who was a broker. It was dated apx 6w after my first email to broker. Friend was telling me what to include in a letter to compliance dept. I don't have a printed copy of my letter - so can't remember if was entitled formal complaint - or their reply. Will check storage later. If I have anything useful I will post

I just checked. I sent them a very simple email requesting specific docs. I didn't label my request as a SAR. they replied labelling my request for docs as a SAR. There were a few emails between us asking/ answering questions. They then sent a link to a more full response to my request for docs - probably anticipating a claim given they knew they'd not acted correctly. They did mention they considered that a final response. But I hadn't actually made a formal complaint per se. As said before - I got swept down a different path and haven't considered reverting to this (making formal complaint/ claim) until now I think there's a bit of splitting hairs by the broker. They treated my simple request for some docs as if it was a complaint - because they knew my gentle request was a precursor to a complaint. I did not label a letter as formal complaint. So would I be able to revert to new correspondence entitled 'formal complaint' ?

Thanks hb. Will read Would it be best to re-contact broker even tho I did in 19?

That's a good point. Is one tied in to one broker? Probably not. But I did get a specific email from this particular broker telling me not to use any other broker. Assume they all try the same lenders? This broker wanted the % fee. He gave some "explanations" - about 'hard searches' affecting credit score, that lenders would be confused if different brokers being used for same client... So I refrained from using other brokers