Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
    • Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.
    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
  • 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

Mortgage shortfall from 10 years ago


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1758 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

My home was repossessed following a relationship breakdown in 2008 by Birmingham Midshires.

 

I was contacted in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 by BM debt collectors chasing the shortfall and each time I did not acknowledge the debt but i did request clarification on how the shortfall came about in a letter from a solicitor I received in 2010.

 

In all my correspondence I highlighted I was not acknowledging the debt to BM or to their representatives.

 

Two weeks ago I received a letter out of the blue from Moorcroft chasing the same debt again and then the weekend just gone I got a chaser letter from them again threatening further action.

 

I do not know where I stand now with this as BM or their representatives have not contacted me for over 6 years and I have lived at the same address this entire time only recently moving house. ir

 

Do I contact them not acknowledging the debt and requesting further info on how the figure was arrived at?

 

Or have they lost there chance to chase this debt as its been over 6 years since they last contacted me? Help!:-x

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

for mortgage debts the 6 years SB doesnt apply, they have 12 years to chase you.

 

Moorcroft are more than likely just a gopher so you can either ignore them for the moment or you can demand various paperwork under the CCA.

 

If they dont have it then tough luck to them but it may mean they try a bit harder to find it and they still have a couple of years to chase you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that

 

. I will ask them for the paper work as I did that in 2010 and then never heard from that particular collector again but got another fishing letter from a different collector2 years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest you check online to see if Birmingham & Midshires signed up or agreed to a scheme where by they will not chase Shortfalls after 6 years,

 

from memory it was a not a legally enforceable agreement,

 

but worth checking

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wont come under the CML scheme as BM has been writing to you

 

Dont contact moorcroft

Dont ask for paperwork

 

Its just a phishing trip

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which state our client..BM

Ignore

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

continue here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Received a letter this morning from Moorcroft stating that their client has provided a completion statement for the repossessed property account and a copy of the signed declaration when i took out the mortgage. They state they will hold the account till 18/7 to give me time to contact them to discuss payment arrangements and if i require anything further in relation to information to contact them.

 

What should I do? Any advise will be greatly appreciated as the statement is dated 3/9/2008 and i really do not want the 12 year clock starting again or getting a CCJ.

 

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 6/8 

ignore the powerless DCA.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We consider whether it’s fair for the lender to recover the money if they haven’t been in touch for a long time. MCOB 13.6.4 requires residential mortgage lenders to contact their customer within six years of the sale date (five years in Scotland) to say whether they intend to recover a shortfall.

 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/mortgages/mortgage-shortfall

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what?

 

as for them writing

I doubt the OC even knows it happened.

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moorcroft send thousands of chasing letters every week. They are normally employed by original creditors, as a light touch chaser of debts. They simply regularly send letters for a period, to see whether they receive a response.

 

With mortgage debts, the original creditor has already used the debt as a loss against tax. They may also have had some form of contingency insurance against the loss. Therefore anything they recover now is a bonus.

 

When people suffer from repossession, they are very unlikely to ever have the means to pay much towards any debt. Therefore the orginal creditor is not expecting to recover the debt. But of course the debt has a commercial value, as an asset which they can pass onto a DCA to harass debtors into making payments. The DCA pays an amount to the OC for a number of debts they can chase for a period and the DCA pockets the money.

 

And of course both the DCA and OC would love for a debtor to admit liability to the debt in writing. This resets the clock for statute baring.  And responding to the DCA is like fishing, with a small bite encouraging them to believe they might have you hooked.

 

If you own any assets such as new property, then seek further advice. But if you have nothing at risk, it is safe to ignore them.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...