Jump to content

mungos mum

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mungos mum

  1. Thanks caro, any help would be much appreciated.

    The property was valued (by 'independant!' valuers, commisioned by the receivers) at £170k

    Similar property in the area is on the market at between £100k to £150k

    I owe roughly £150k

    Would an injunction by something I would get my solicitor to do or is it something that I could do fairly easily myself?

    I don't know the first thing about how injunctions work.

    Our experience of navigating the court system on our own has been quite dismal.

    Last year we took a receiver to court for blatent non compliance of the data protection act, they had a barrister & solicitor in court who argued their case so effectively that the judge disregarded the legalities & found in their favor.

    This has left us wary of 'going it alone' but on the other hand I don't want to start running up huge bills with our solicitor.

    Many thanks

    MM x

  2. I also meant to say that we had a go at mediation with MX early last year.

    We (ourselves & our solicitor) had several meetings with someone in MX who was only answerable to the two directors, Dick Pym & Dick Banks.

    We really thought that we were making progress and the person we were dealing with could see the sense in our proposals, our solicitor was having regular telephone conversations with this person & everything was moving along at quite a pace.

    All of a sudden things changed & the receivers seemed to take charge, three properties were sold (simultaneous exchange & completion) under value in one week.

    We attempted to contact our person in MX but his P.A kept saying that he was un-availaible.

    About a week later we had an e-mail saying that he was sorry but he would no longer be able to proceed with our negotiations in a manner which we would have anticipated. Our solicitor was not able to speak with him & we were all at a loss as to understand what had happened.

    The sale of our properties by the receivers then escalated & we were back to 'square one'.

    Our solicitor later found out that the person we were dealing with had been made to stop the negotiations by the two Dicks, he left MX shortly afterwards and went abroad.

    If that doesn't stink of corruption then I don't know what does.

    The reason for speaking about this is just to let people know about our experience of 'mediation' involving MX.

    Obviously that was 18 months ago and their attitude may have now changed, I do hope so for your sake.

    If you do go down the route of mediation then it may be worth taking a recording device with you. MX won't like it (nor I suspect will your solicitor) but at least you will then have proof of what was said.

     

    MM x

  3. Hi jut & chillin

    Well done on the progress you have made, I am so pleased for you.

    I probably need to get back in the saddle & start fighting again as MX & receivers have now taken all of my properties bar three!

    I had an attempt at trying to stop the eviction of two of my tenants a few weeks ago.

    The tenants are a couple who are in their 70's, they've been with me, in the same property for 12 years, they've never missed a rental payment to either me or the receiver, the house is immaculate and the property is in credit. As you can imagine, saying that my tenants are in a bit of a state would be an understatement.

    I proposed to MX & receivers that my cousin, who has the cash to pay off the mortgage in full, is willing to buy the property on the proviso that the tenants be allowed to stay in the property (receivers have issued a section 21 & insist on vacant possession), I pointed out to them that paying the mortgage off in full will far exceed the amount that will be realised if the property goes to auction.

    As expected this was turned down flat, I think they muttered something about needing to follow proceedure! I did inform them that I was recording the conversations but this was of no concern to either MX or receiver. They are so arogant and sure of their legal standing that threatening them with court (in my case anyway) just doesn't seem to hold water.

    Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Many thanks

    MM x

  4. I believe that most of us on this site (ourselves included) have not been made bankrupt, the lender has employed the services of LPA receivers to 'manage' the properties on our behalf, we are in law still the legal owners with all the responsibility that goes with ownership including resposibility to pay council tax if property is vacant.

    We are entitled to a 6 month exemption period but seeing that some of our properties have now been under the control of the receiver and empty of tenants for nearly 3 years, the council have been chasing us and have obtained CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax.

    And yes, I have had meetings with the council and have been to the court hearings only to be told that 'the law is the law and we are legally required to pay the bills'.

    What sticks most in my throat regarding the conduct of the receivers and MX is that we have written evidence that there is colusion between the receiver and the lender.

    The receiver has employed companies from Scotland to do work on our properties in the South of England, the costs added for travel arrangements were huge.

    We have been billed for replacing guttering on a bay window that has never had guttering and doesn't need guttering.

    We have been billed £600 for a new washer/dryer but a second hand appliance was installed instead, there are many other examples of 'creative' accounting.

    We know of investors coming in to buy our properties and 'bunging' the estate agents to make sure they can be bought for the right price.

    Some of the initial paperwork issued by the receivers was dated before the lender instructed them and some of it even has the wrong names on. We sought the advice of a public access barrister regarding this but was told that it didn't really matter as the receiver could say it was just a mistake and then rectify the paperwork later.

    I can understand the councils trying to get money out of us as it is legally our responsibility but it does seem a tad unfair that the receivers and the companies they employ can get away with this kind of behaviour.

    Maybe they are all owned by 'News International'

    MM

  5. The trouble is, our properties have not been repossessed, they are only managed (laughable I know) on our behalf by the receivers and because of this we are still legally responsible for the council tax.

    MX themselves have investigated this for us (bless'em) along with our solicitor and as the legal owners we are allowed the 6 months exemption, if the property is empty, but after that the bill does come due to us.

  6. Council tax exemption seems to rely on the individual councils.

    In my experience some councils accept that once a receiver is appointed there is no point in chasing the owner for the council tax, others have been far harder about this and despite meeting with council staff and proving that the properties are in the hands of the receivers they (correctly) insist that the law states unless a property has actually been repossessed (which ours haven't) then we are liable for all council tax payments until such time as the receiver decides to sell.

    We now have CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax on the properties 'managed' by the receivers which could result in us being sent to prison.

    Just another nail in the coffin of buy to let landlords.

    MM

  7. Hi guys

     

    I've eventually had a reply from my MP in response to the letter I wrote asking her to support The Lending Reform Bill being presented by George Eustice M.P.

     

    The basis of her response is as follows;

     

    'George Eustice is to be commended for his examination of the wide body of law covering business mortgages, which I know many people believe is in need of reform. He argues, for example, that under the Law of Property Act 1925, it was envisaged that receivers would be able to receive income earned from assets and not receive the proceeds of the sale of such assets.

    I have particular sympathy for the view that consideration should be given to widen the scope of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, so that the requirement for banks to seek a possession order from the courts before repossessing a property with a residential mortgage would also apply to business mortgages.

    I believe a matter of this complexity is best considered by the Treasury and I can assure you that Ministers are aware of the broader points you make. Private landlords provide much needed rental accomodation and it is in everyones interests that we have a legal framework which treats them fairly.'

     

    I'm not convinced that she has fully grasped all of the points but at least she is aware of the situation.

     

    Best wishes

    MM

  8. Hi Ed

    Thank you for all the info, it certainly makes for interesting reading.

    As far as contacting M.P's are concerned a few of us have 'hit a brick wall', the only M.P that I know of who is the slightest bit interested in this fiasco is George Eustice, MP for Redruth, Cornwall. He has a 2nd reading of his 'Secured Lending Reform Bill' in the House of Commons on (I think) the 10th of June.

    I have tried to make contact on several occasions with our local MP asking her to support the bill, she has completely ignored me...I know that I should kick up a fuss but to be honest after 3 years of fighting we have to get on with our lives & find a way to earn a living.

    We have in the past contacted both P.M's & chancellors in both the last government and the current government, all to no avail.

    The barrister a few of us met with has gone very quiet, I don't know that anyone has had any success with him.

    Sorry that this all sounds very negative but as I mentioned earlier, a few of us have done a lot of research, had meetings, done our Subject Access Requests, met solicitors & barristers who have written seemingly good letters for us that have been sent to MX & the receivers and we still haven't moved forward in any way.

    I don't know about other Caggers, but we have spent a small fortune seeking help and advice from solicitors and barristers, we have now completely run out of money and there is no way that we can afford to pay for any form of legal advice.

    We have massive files, full of information regarding the wrong doings of both MX and the receivers. This includes evidence of MX and the receivers collaborating against us, E-mails and photographic evidence of the receivers false accounting, proof that the lender knew what was going on but doing nothing to stop the receivers, the receivers accepting their appointments months before they were actually appointed by the lender, the receivers accepting appointments in the wrong names, proof that the recievers (or their solicitors) carried out no due diligence when accepting appointments, the list goes on and on.

    I am sorry that this comes across as a very defeated posting, but we are tired of the fight and as you may have guessed we are just a tad jaded now!

    We're still happy to share info but for the time being we have run out of 'fight'

    MM

  9. Hi Guys

    Does anyone have any idea what the legal standing is regarding the letting of a 'buy to let' to family members, or more to the point where the law stands regarding the repossession of such a property?

     

    I know that letting to a family member is a breach of most lenders mortgage contract, but if I were (in theory) to have a family member renting a property from myself, then in law if a lender (or receiver) went for possession of the 'buy to let' property then would the court treat family as though they were living in a property that has a residential mortgage?

     

    Sorry if I'm rambling a bit!

    Reason I ask is that I overheard a barrister speaking about this and he said that the law would override a mortgage contract in court. I have asked the barrister in question for clarification regarding this, but have not heard back from him.

     

    Any thoughts?

     

    Many thanks

    MM

  10. Hi Murphy

     

    I am so sorry to learn that you have also been affected by these un-fair practices.

     

    I agree that at the moment doing a SAR doesn't seem to be a step forward and it will take quite a while for the lender, receiver etc to comply (they hate receiving them) and they will do all they can to wriggle out of providing you with the information,

    What it will mean in the long term is that eventually you should end up with copies of all communication you have had and they have had with each other, from these muppets. This should include transcripts of any 'phone calls you made to lender trying to reach an agreement regarding the arrears (this will prove that you have tried to work with them, you will need to keep going back and hassling them until you get what you need as they do NOT want you to have this info as it's not in their interests) the same goes for the receiver not being co-operative and not talking to you.

    The information you receive may show the lender directing the receiver, this is illegal as the lender is then acting as mortgagee in possession, a case for a solicitor to address.

    Hopefully by the time you get all the info you need some of us may by then have reached a point where our collective cases can be taken for a trial court case or the FSA will take up our cases and look at the unfair practices of these firms.

    Finally, IF the lender does go for bankrupcy against you, then you will need all of the info to help you fight.

    I'm sure that there are more reasons to have the info and other Caggers will add to the list.

     

    MM

  11. For what it's worth, I believe that the 'unfairness' of this should be highlighted.

    Bradford & Bingley (Mortgage Express) are now a nationalised company and so owned by the British tax payer, their practices of underselling and leaving the account holder with huge shortfalls means that the British public will have to swallow the millions of pounds that will be lost (most of us mortgage express customers will not have the spare cash to pay back these shortfall arrears) and so in short, the Government treasury is actively encouraging this huge loss of money to the tax payer.

    When it's thought of in terms of what those lost millions of pounds could buy; hospitals, schools, police, nurseries etc etc, then surely it makes sense for the treasury to put a stop to this and allow landlords to run their portfolios effectively which will then produce profit for the tax payer with landlords paying tax and capital gains tax.

    I cannot see why this is so difficult for the treasury and politicians to understand, my MP will not even answer my letters and e-mails, I suspect that she must also be part of this corruption and have her sticky fingers in the pie

  12. Hi chillin

    I'm sorry to say that we had exactly the same thing happen to us last year.

    I went with the tenants to CAB & Shelter and they were at a loss as to what to do.

    When it came to the court hearing the judge was very sympathetic but said she had no option but to allow the eviction process to go ahead as the receiver had been legally appointed by the lender and had served the paperwork correctly.

    The same as you, the only knowledge I had of this was when the tenant contacted me to find out what was going on.

    Our tenants (who had been in the property for 10 years paying rent) were eventually evicted, fortunately I did manage to find, through another landlord, a similar house for them to rent.

    My house was then sold for £60k less than I paid for it 12 years ago, someone had a bargain.

    The whole process is totally immoral.

     

    MM

  13. Hi cartmell

     

    Have you checked directly with Mortgage Express staff at head office that these calls are being directed by them?

    Even though I loath everything about MX, this does seem rather 'fishy'.

    We have numerous problems with MX & their recievers but neither have ever called us from a mobile number.

    I'm sure that there must be a way of stopping these calls, maybe if you were to do a Subject Access Request you would see who has been given your number and why.

     

    Mungos mum

  14. Hi barbara

     

    I'm sorry to learn that you too have been robbed by MX & their receivers but as you can see this kind of practice is rife amongst lenders and receivers, although from what I have seen MX are by far the worst offenders.

    A bill is hopefully going to go through Parliament this year which will stop this kind of behaviour happening in the future, unfortunately it won't help the likes of us now.

    Keep us posted on how you get on

    Best wishes

    mungos mum

  15. Hi Folks

    Just a quick update on the meeting a few of us attended yesterday.

    I think it was a very informative meeting and having an M.P and a Barrister there certainly helped me to see things in a slightly different way.

    Both the M.P & Barrister seemed quite surprised that the lender we were having the most problems with is MX...a company wholly owned by the British taxpayer.

    The M.P did seem quite shocked at the level of corruption within both MX and the LPA receivers. We have asked him to try to find out from colleagues etc how much knowledge other people have regarding these matters.

    He has put together a Bill (Secured Lending Reform Bill) to try to ammend parts of the 1925 Law of Property Act. If anybody is interested in knowing more about this or would like more info regarding the M.P then please send me a PM.

    The Barrister was great, we have over the last few years met countless solicitors and Barristers, but this guy was different and unusually for a Barrister, quite human!

    He really does seem to know about the 1925 Law of Property Act and gave us some of his thoughts on how we could get round some of problems...it's the first time for ages that we feel there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

    There will probably be more meetings to discuss how we now take action.

    If anyone doesn't want to attend meetings but does want to tell their story of how they have been treated by the lender &/or receiver then again let me know and I will pass your details on.

    Obviously this is just a very brief update and is only MY opinion of the meeting, other people who were at the meeting may have different views.

    Best wishes

    Mungos mum

  16.  

    This article seems to explain how you should proceed when taking a company to court when the company have not adheared to paying the compensation directed by the FOS.

    Our solicitor told us that by rejecting the findings of the FOS then it could bar us from counter claiming in court against a company.

    This was in relation to a problem we are having with Lloyds and is nothing to do with MX but I presume if this is true then it is the same which ever company is invoved.

    We haven't (thank goodness) put in a complaint to the FOS about MX's conduct.

  17. Hi chillin

     

    I know that 'the usual suspects' will be attending the meeting on the 17th, it's such a shame that we cannot make contact with all the other people who have,over the last few years, posted on this site but understandably now seem to have given up the fight.

    From what I understand, this Barrister we are all going to meet, is going to look at all our cases, find out who has the 'worst case scenario' and then put it forward as a test case in the courts....it will be interesting to see where this goes.

     

    Best wishes

     

    Mungos mum

  18. Hi diddled

     

    I've just read the above article & have printed it to show others that may have not had a chance to read it.

     

    There is some really interesting stuff in here & hopefully some of the bits will be a real help to us all.

    On page 12, there is reference to the consequences of receivers acting as the lenders agent and examples of trials that followed and were held up in court....this is great.

    We have copies of e-mail traffic between lender and receiver (obtained via Subject Access Requests) I know that other people also have hard evidence of the lenders directing the receivers.

     

    Thank you

     

    Mungos mum

  19. Thanks Caro

     

    Does that mean that legally we can still counter claim (against Lloyds) in court even though we have been through FOS?

     

    We most certainly will NOT be going to FOS regarding our problems with MX, past experience has taught us that FOS are biased towards the lenders and are generally a total and utter waste of time.

     

    Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, perhaps they are better geared to the smaller problems people have with small over charges on current accounts etc, although this is 'clutching at straws' as I have not met one person that has been satisfied with FOS's response.

  20. We are in the middle of a long drawn out fight with Lloyds at the moment, the bare basics are as follows;-

    We went through all the correct complaints channels,

    We complained to our business manager, an area manager, Lloyds complaints department and then FOS.

    The FOS said that Lloyds were in the wrong but as business people we should have known better than to have accepted verbally what a Lloyds BDM told us, & then offered us £250 compensation providing we retrospectively signed Lloyds paperwork.

    We rejected this offer & told FOS that we didn't agree with their findings.

    Lloyds are now taking us to court.

     

    We went to see our solicitor for advice on how to present our case in court.

    He explained what we should do for our defence & we then looked at the possibility of counter claiming.

    Our solicitor explained that it was very difficult to counter claim in court when you have been through the FOS.

     

    If this is the case then the last thing any of us want to do is go to the FOS about MX or the receivers and then find that later on it prevents us from issuing a counter claim against them.

     

    Do any of you legal minded people out there in CAG land have any knowledge of this?

     

    Many thanks

     

    Mungos mum

×
×
  • Create New...