Octopus allows you to pay by variable Direct Debit, so you pay only for what you use but still benefit from DD pricing. That's what I've done ever we were SOLRed over to them in July 2022.

Meter certification periods re given in The Meters (Certification) Regulations 1998, Schedule 4. From there you can check if they are correct about your specific meter .. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1566/schedule/4 If they're telling porkies then you have e clear grounds to tell them to take hike. If they're correct or if you haven't been able to confirm then you have few options. You could just keep fobbing them off. In general Octopus can't keep up with demand for smart meters. It took 9 months to get our. So they may not push too hard. Or ask if you can install your own choice of meter. The Electricity Act 1989 cover this in Schedule 7 (2) and (2A) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/schedule/7 Or fight the them and their enforcement. Or go off supply.

What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.

No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others. Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.

It may be vaguely possible Entity could apply citing the fact that Lender is not exercising their own right. But they won't. As a second charge holder they will be aware they only get the crumbs at the very best, and that a property that's been in arrears for so long probably won't even cover Lender's costs and balance leaving nothing for them. They may also take the view that others have been unable to sell over several years, so why would they have any more success.

A second charge holder isn't going to do that at this stage. "Lender" would get first dibs on the proceeds of sale probably leaving nothing for "Entity".

Other entity? Does another creditor have security on the property?

In that case I don't think you'd have any grounds for a claim against the receiver, short of anything actually criminal. The receiver was appointed by the lender so any claim you make should be aginst them. How much equity do you reckon there was when they took possession? Realistic value less outstanding balance (including arrears). This messing around makes me wonder even more if the property was wildly over valued. Normally a lender would sell and not really care if they got the best price so long as they covered the balance plus their costs.

How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?

It would have been an interest only loan so the lender would want to know how the principal would be paid off. Bridging would only expect to be short term to fill a gap until "something" that would mean it's no longer needed. That wouldn't preclude paying off the bridging loan if you'd been able to find an alternative. When you say you made a Full and Final offer, i assume that was less than the sum outstanding. The lender wouldn't have been obliged to accept that. These issues with lenders and with ability to sell makes me wonder if the property was in fact well overvalued. Did you have a surveyor give an independent valuation? In terms of your claim against the agent. What would have happened back then if youd not been offered that bridging loan? If the broker had said "sorry I can't find anything for you". If the answer is yyou'd have had to sell right away, or the previous lender would have taken possession, then could the broker argue that the bridging at least gavecyou a breathing space to find other finance or to sell on your terms. I don't think you'll get anywhere claiming the broker should have offered anything different, without some evidence that it was available at the time.

I'm not sure it's relevant what the property was classed as. Property rented to residential tenant is classed as rssidential property, same as if it was owner occupied. More relevant is the fact that the property had been rented, you intended to continue to do so, and you weren't going to live there. I presume that was the reason for specifically seeking BTL finance rather than a residential mortgage. I'm puzzled why you entered into a loan that didn't permit you to rent. Was that not included in the terms and conditions? And you say you were forced in some way to take it. You found it impossible to sell, was that literally impossible or rather you couldn't sell it at the price you wanted?

If you're considering a claim against the broker there a couple of points to bear in mind. Firstly the background. I am more than ever sure this will be classed as business to business, rather than consumer lending. If that's the case you will be seen as an experienced landlord with a history of BTL borrowing. That's the background against which the broker will be judged. Secondly in terms of claim, the claimant in general has an obligation to mitigate their loss. That should be taken into account when trying to quantify any claim. Did signing up with that 12% bridging loan irrevocably set you on the path you described, or could you have paid it off after finding a better deal? I would expect anything called "bridging" to be short term in nature, quite likely no penalty for paying it off at any time. So you could make claim based on your loss as a result of having to pay that bridging finance for say the couple of months it would have taken to find a longer term BTL mortgage. I don't know what chance that would have. But i don't think there is any chance of a claim for two years of interest and the loss of the property. However we're still relying on second hand information and maybe I'm wrong about the broker. On what terms was he engaged, was it to find this specific finance, or was he your long term financial adviser with ongoing duties beyond that? I note in the loan terms and conditions you declare that you have obtained legal advice. Was that from the broker, or was there also a lawyer acting for you at the time. Really I think a lot turns on the question "is BTL finance considered business or consumer" and i hope others will give their view. I may be completely wrong.

At that point you didn't have finance, so wouldn't have been able to buy the property. Do you really want to unwind that far? What sort of values are we speaking about, property value, loan required?

Were you tied into that particular broker? I mean if you were confident you should have been able to get better terms, were you prevented from looking elsewhere?

I read that as the first bank would not make the loan on various grounds. The bank rather than the broker was worried about affordability. The broker then found an alternative lender, maybe under those circumstances it's not surprising the rate was higher. Although 12% is high, my amateur opinion is it would be tough to claim they were culpable for offering it.