Here is an blog that I found which contains helpful information for anybody that is being chased for very old mortgage shortfalls. Posted below is the link for the full blog (highly recommended reading), and also below is a extract of the blog to give you a flavour of the very helpful legal defences that you may be able to assert. Seal67 If you owe your Bank a shortfall on a Mortgage, they have six years to come after you if the shortfall is on the Interest and 12 years if it consists of the Principal Mortgage Loan. This is because the Contract for Interest is separate for the Contract for the Principal Loan. The latter is contained in a Mortgage Deed, described as a Contract of Speciality, which as said has a 12 year time span for a Claim to be brought in Court as opposed to 6 years for the Contract for Interest, which is under what’s called a Simple Contract. This principle of Limitation applies to all actions for Money and is not necessarily restricted to Mortgage Shortfall cases. The time is calculated from the date you default in your Mortgage repayment, i.e when “the cause of action accrues”. (This principle has recently been firmly established as the current Law on this subject by the House of Lords last year in West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson [2005] 1 WLR 2303) If they do not do this then you can raise it as a defence to the Court action they’ve brought against you. Its called a Limitation Defence. Bear in mind however that if the Bank issues a demand after the cause of action “accrues”, then the Limitation period then has to be calculated from the date of the demand. If however the Bank gets or has gotten Judgement against you, then there is no time limit for it to enforce the Judgement. Enforcement refers to action taken by a party at law to recover a Judgement its obtained, such as Attachment of Property (the good old Bailiffs), Attachment of Earnings, etc. For this there is no time limit. Be careful. In conclusion a word of warning, never ignore demand letters, always keep a conversation going with creditors and always demonstrate good faith by making a payment no matter how small. If however the Lenders adopt a rigid stance, talk to an IFA or a decent Solicitor. The main lesson is that in a capitalist world they never go away (debts that is- not the Solicitors and IFA’s).

EIE, Much good wishes and joy to you over Christmas and look forward to your return, and, especially wish you a happy, prosperous and successful New Year. Wonderman

On Kegi's bold bit, I'm inclined to say no, until told I'm wrong. Wonderman

Total and absolute agreement with you Rocket1! We are oppressed and burdened with total corruption at every national institution and the tax burden falls only on US!...Will visit the CommonDreams web site, but in the meantime, my hope is that: at the next election vote for ANYONE EXCEPT for the usual labour/conservative MPs. If we want change - real change - then we need to get rid of BOTH labour and the conservatives. They are both the bloody same deal so change means getting rid of those career polititians who just rubber stamp their dictator's whim. The establishment have alread "annointed" Cameron as the next dictator/prime minister - he'll be just as bad to us as the others. Get rid of career politians and their career MP monkies. Please consider any other MP!!!..and lets make them represent US!!! Lets abolish safe seats for career MPs. NO MORE "SAFE" SEATS for career MPs!!

Thanks Mrsiphone. Interesting case and its always useful to keep a log of these rare wins for the underdog. The case that the Guardian report refers to is a 1991 case.

Dear Rocket1 Thank you for posting up about your blog site. Having read the Neasa MrErlan's article, do you or any body else know the name of the 1991 case referred to in her article, i.e., where she reports: A case based on what's known as mortgage "misrepresentation" might also be feasible. According to Ryley, this might be arguable if you were "given a very hard sell, or told everything good about the product and given no information about what would happen when interest rates went up". If misrepresentation is argued successfully, the contract can be rescinded - as a case in 1991 proved. I find it interesting that where there is a case where a borrower prevails (a massively rare occurrence), the case cannot be found on bailii. Wonder why these prescendents are always so unavailable to the public...but maybe it's just me...does anyone know this case?

JonCris is right, and its going to get worse. Traditionally law firms could only be owned by the lawyers who were partners i.e., if you were not a qualified lawyer you could not invest in, or own an interest in a law firm. But the law is changing so that non-lawyers may own shares in the law firms. So how do you think that change in the law will turn out in reality? In my view it means that the banks will own the law firms too. And once the banks and other corporates buy up and own the law firms how much access to justice do you think consumers will actually get?....even less that we get now! Plus, even if there is a law firm that represents a consumer defendant to any degree of success, the corporates and the banks can always get rid of the case by merely buying up the law firm to stifle the prospect of an adverse judgment and precedent being set. Again, this change in the law is being made on the basis that it will apparently give us minions more "access to justice", when in practice it will mean more of the "just us"! The banks and corporates will be the gatekeepers whose policies as owners and shareholders will ensure monopolisation of the legal profession. Watch out for a whole lot of merging of different law firms into big firms over the next few years that will concentrate legal power into a few large firms. So the double whammy is to scrap legal aid (that limb has now been substantively achieved) and then monopolise the legal profession. Practical result: Access to justice denied!

Bustthematrix, Well it seems that eminent jurists have for centuries recognised that: " A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge." Isn't that exactly the tactic that our judges engage in for which we have adopted EIE's phrase of linguistic acrobats. In principle then, many (or most) of our judges are unworthy judges. Hi Ryde, Blair hmmm....he said that way before J P Morgan offered him some lucrative directorship. See, how they all get bought off.

Joy, just pure joy...yes, that is the only strategy. Keep on and on until they are so weary of their linguistic acrobats that they tie themselves up in their inconsistent knots, then there's always the ECHR and the ECJ. Oh never ever give up fighting our "just us" system. Credit to Bustthematrix for the "just us" label because that accurately describes what happens at the Royal Courts of Just us. Wonderman

The Deputy District Judges are a major issue. They are in private practice and they also sit in judgment which means that they can deliver a "win" verdict for their clients irrespective of justice. I know for as a fact for example, that there was one DDJ who is a solicitor at a large city law firm who sat on a Preferred Mortgages repossession claim on 11 December 2008 at Lambeth County Court. Preferred Mortgages was his law firm's client! So much for Article 6 and the right to have an impartial and independent judge! This DDJ could hardly be called independent and impartial when his business is dependant on the business relationship he had or has with Preferred as his client. That's the sort of absolute rot we are up against. A clear case of bias. But do you think a litigant in person would be able to bring a case of bias against this judge? In the public's opinion probably yes because this is an obvious injustice. But have a read of a case in the Court of Appeal called Taylor v Lawrence. That was a case of absolute bias by a county court judge who got freebies legal work from a law firm (equivalent to a back hander) and then the very next day, that judge rubber stamped a "win" for law firm on a case that was listed against a litgant in person. Like most of us, we instinctively know when we've been the victim of injustice, and this LIP investigated and got the evidence he needed to show the clear case of bias. But, the Court of Appeal did not take any umbrage at the Judge for lying through his teeth, did not take any umbrage and the law firm for compromising the integrity of the court (which in my view has no integrity), no, the Court of Appeal seriously chastised the victim LIP for the manner in which he got the evidence of the corrupt judge. Read the case for yourself to see just how the Court of Appeal will condone a corrupt judge and note that when it gives reasons as to why it held that "there was no bias", they totally avoid the fact that the judge got a pecuniary gain from his incestuous relationship with the law firm. Not one word in the judgment was given to reason why the back-hander did not constitute bias. The Taylor v Lawrence case (para. 58) asserts the test for judicial bias which is: The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.” So what would a "fair-minded and informed observer" make of the Judge's conduct in this case, probably that the judge was bias in favour of his buddies at the law firm who gave him free legal advice and work. But guess who is the law deems as "the fair-minded and informed observer"...well, the words "informed observer" are the lawyers and judges themselves i.e, not the public, no, it is the incestuous brotherhood of judges and laywers only. The informed are the "legal fraternity" who sit in judgment in their own cause and naturally, stick together to come to a decision of their own advantage. Hence, the court's in this country will never find that a judge is biased. How can we have confidence in such a system where the court of appeal ignore clear cases of bias against LIPs and in fact, condone what this judge and law firm did? There is no doubt in my mind that this LIP did not have an independant and impartial judge in accordance with Article 6 even though the Court of Appeal exonerated this judge. This case just goes to show the depth of the rot. So back to repossession judges. Yes, they will rubber stamp for the scummers because that is the judicial policy irrespective of the rule of law. EIE's instinct is wholly correct. The complicity of our courts in support of the criminality of the lenders is institutionally and systemically ingrained and absolute. The upshot is that in practice, the judges and the lawyers will carve it up amongst themselves to find against a LIP. That is the incestuous reality of our "justice" system. As for the darlings of the court, i.e. the lenders, got to ask yourself the question, how many judges have freebie "loans" from the banks? Well famously, Peter Mandelson had a very advantageous mortgage, but he got rumbled so why not the judges? After all, they're merely human beings who just happen to have judicial power.

Do you really think it is a gamble? The fundamental policy of these scummers is to liquidate their assets. That means that you are forced to remortgage (which for most is now an impossibility) or you will be repossessed. You will be repossessed by the scummers increasing and increasing charges and fees to contrive your alleged arrears until such time as they can say you are in default. Once they have contrived your default you will be repossessed. The courts will rubber stamp the possession order. For some of us, the courts will delay and defer the possession date but the upshot is always the same. You will be repossessed. Look at the Pender case! Even 7 years after the possession order, the scummers went in and repossessed and our feckless courts of "justice" rubber stamped (as usual). There are a handful of judges that do apply the rule of law, but in the end, the judicial policy to always give the bank you home will always be the end result. It's up to us to keep trying to break through the rotten "justice" system and attempt to revive both the principle of equaility before the law and most importantly, the rule of law. So what's to gamble? Some choose to vigoursly fight this injustice perpetrated not only by the scummers but also by the ignorant courts. In the meantime, each and every one who has been enslaved by these evil so called "contracts" is put to the 24/7 stress of keeping the fox from your door. Is that the sort of peaceful enjoyment of your home that the public should be forced to endure? The government, the OFT, the FSA, the FOS have all lost public confidence for being ineffectual lame dogs. The courts are the final institution to turn to for justice, but alas, they appear (so far) to be as deliquent in applying their own rules as the other lame dogs.

Re City Mortgage Corporation v Riley Hi All, The case is a County Court case that is "Unreported", but it has been cited in a couple of other cases. See e.g., on the bailii site: GMAC RFC LIMITED Claimant/Respondent - v - (1) MICHAEL GRANT-SINCLAIR (2) CHRISTINE GRANT-SINCLAIR During the course of the argument my attention has been drawn to an interesting case, namely City Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Reilly and Reilly, which was an unreported decision of Judge Rubery in the Stroke-on-Trent County Court, dated 28th November 1997. On analysis that decision does not, in my judgment, assist the applicant for this reason. There the claimant was City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, which was the original lender and mortgagee. The original mortgage was dated 15th March 1996. On I think the same day a transfer of what Judge Rubery held to be the legal and beneficial interest in the charge was transferred to another company called Greenwich International Ltd. The transfer was not dated and it was submitted on behalf of the claimant, which was City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, that it took effect only in equity and not in law. I should add that notice to the defendants of the transfer was given on the same day, 15th March 1996. The judge rejected the claimant's submission and held that the transfer operated as a transfer of the legal interest and that notice of that transfer had been given to the defendant, so that the transferor or assignor, City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, no longer had any rights under the charge. Those rights were vested in the transferee or assignee, namely Greenwich International Ltd. Accordingly, the claim failed. Hence the reason why the Legal v Equitable argument is so important. The lenders can be defeated with this argument provided that the truth and the evidence is before the court. This is why the lenders conceal and hide the Mortgage Sale Agreement! The truth is that it is a legal assignment. AND TO ALL SPML BORROWERS, THIS FOLLOWING CASE MAY BE OF GREAT INTEREST...you see, like SPML, City Mortgage Corporation were also repossessing homes when it appeared that City mort. corp. may have been in liquidation OCWEN LIMITED Claimant/Respondent - v - ALEXANDRA QUINN

You may be right h8them, but who are we to deny his/her chosen personality? If he/she is a Brit that is a wannabe Yank, that's OK, we can graciously accommodate schizo personalities too.

Hi EIE, That's why I welcome the Whistleblower - our cultures (i.e the people on the ground have so much in common) but the governance systems we live under are very different and yes, we could do with the US separation of powers and constitution over here - but we have, as you eloquently say, the feudal DNA still intact. Maybe we can have a 21 Century Thomas Paine who could speed up an evolvotion of the feudal DNA because our people need to break free of our pathetic subjugation - that's where I think Whistleblower got it right - but we do already know it so we don't need to be reminded. We know we suffer it!

Hi EIE, The linguistic acrobats of our judges is certainly skilled. But they are lacking in one skill. That is, hiding the fact that they are forced to engage in linguistic acrobats in order to avoid applying the rule of law. The problem is, it is all too transparent that they've been reduced to linguistic acrobats. There is only one reason for them to reduce themselves to contortions, distortions and acrobatics, that is, so that they can attempt to justify their capricious and arbitrary decisions. But we can see that's what they're doing. They need to polish up their act if they want to keep the public's confidence in their institution, don't you think?