Jump to content

j-dog

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About j-dog

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Is it possible to argue that the loan agreement was void as it was put in place through undue influence by the bank, rather than trying to set aside the guarantee itself? I found the following definition that would apply: "Where the transaction is obviously not to the benefit of the vulnerable party but confers a great advantage to the party in a fiduciary position, the law will raise a presumption that the transaction was entered as a result of some sort of abuse of the relationship. This requirement used to be expressed in terms of manifest disadvantage. "
  2. Having read up a bit, the undue influence might be an angle. There are 2 elements to this. We were rushed when we first arranged the bridging loan as we needed it in place quickly and we had to sign the guarantee in its unlimited state before they would agree it. We trusted the bank that this was necessary in respect of the bridging loan but did not consider the future impact as we knew that would be paid off quickly. The second was that the guarantee was used as security for a loan that was only put in place under protest, knowing full well we were fully disadvantaged by it but that w
  3. "All of the debtor's liabilities to the Bank of any kind and in any currency (whether present or future, actual or contingent)...." They also have "The bank may without consent of or notice to the guarantor, and without releasing or reducing the liability to he Bank of the Guarantor under this deed :-" and then list a load of arrangements they can make with the debtor to increase their liability, without us needing to know about it. The guarantee is a Limited Guarantee by Individual - does this not make me a consumer as it is a personal guarantee? BTW - the limit is the amount
  4. I will do that. What do you mean by "at Director level"? Is that to a named director rather than just through the customer service route?
  5. Thinking more about your question - at the time we didn't know about the perpetuity clause and didn't cancel the guarantee formally when we should have as we assumed that paying off the loan would automatically also cancel the guarantee. Naïve.
  6. I wasn't aware of the perpetuity clause but the time they made us sign a form to say we did not want to have legal advice and that we were signing as fully empowered directors involved in the business. We needed that bridging loan quickly so we didn't take as much care as we should have. No - we didn't formally cancel the guarantee as soon as the loan was paid off. I have some correspondence from the bank acknowledging the loan was being paid off but nothing relating anything back to the PG. Stupid. They seem to have made us sign all the right forms to give them absolute power
  7. I am not sure if anyone can give me any advice on how I can defend a personal guarantee claim from Natwest? In 2006 the ltd company for which I was a director took out a bridging loan from Natwest for 2 months whilst we waited for funds from a secured loan with a different asset management company. The loan came through within 2 months and the Natwest loan was fully repaid. The asset loan has also since been repaid. However, the guarantee said it exists for perpetuity until the director dies and the bank referred to it as security in a subsequent overdraft facility. It
×
×
  • Create New...