Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dx100uk
      Santuary Housing

      By dx100uk · Posted

      go do a Direct Debit Guarantee Clawback to your bank if you've now got control of his bank account finny.
    • jk2054
      Santuary Housing

      By jk2054 · Posted

      Hello, Just to check I understand things right, he moved to a nursing home, you then kept paying the rent for a period of time whilst you sorted his belongings. You have asked to give notice and asked for backdated payments of rent from when you first asked which went ignored? They are still taking rent payments.   Have I understood correct?   If I've got anything wrong please correct me.
    • finaldj
      Santuary Housing

      By finaldj · Posted

      I contacted Sanctury housing in August 2023 after informing them my father in law who had Dementia had moved into a Nursing home December 2022. We kept the flat for 8 months until such a time we could accomodate some of his furniture that my wife wanted to keep. I contacted them in August 2023 to let them know the situation by email as I was the named person that could speak on his behalf. I informed them that we had left it to late for POT and were seeing a solicitor for Deputyship of his financies. I asked them what information would they need in order to give notice on the flat and we could provide details of his condition and nursing home. This went ignored I left it a month and then called them October 2023. I was promised a call back from a manager over the next few days. This never happened and it was end of November when I contacted them again and they had no record of me calling them. I explained the email and again I was told the local manager to the area would call me. This never happened and I ended up emailing them in January 2024 with a copy of the email from August. Again this went ignored and I had explained to them that we couldn't just go to the bank and stop the DD as we had tried. This email again went ignored. I then had a letter written to our home address in February asking us to get in contact with them (local manager) as they were concerend nobody was living in the flat. He had an email address so I copied in the last 2 emails to say I had been trying to give notice since August 2023. I also stated that I would like the rent that was paid from August 2023 refunded back to his account as I had officially tried to give notice then and it went ignored. He replied to us about wanting to look at the flat then notice could be given once he had contacted the nursing home to confirm he was actually living there now. Notice was giving for the 22 March 2024 and this would be when rent would stop and no further payment would be taken by this point. The fact I asked to be back dated went ignored. I have since noticed on 2 banks statement for April and May that they are still taking Rent payments of £501 from his bank. Further to this which seems very strange. He was with Eon Next for his utility bill again we were having problems getting this stopped as they needed a named person on his account which there wasn't one despite me managing his online account for him. I didn't check the email address that often that I used to set it up and went to check as noticed the credit he had built up with not living there was all getting refunded in February. The email said £600 would be refunded to his account with a (sorry you are leaving us message) but how can he leave as nobody but himself had access to speak with them. I also noticed the lady in the flat above him had a letter from her bank sent to his address with his address details but his name which was dated 4th March well before we had given notice and it said (thank you for giving us your new address details) we have set all this up for your account.   So Sanctuary housing must have been aware he wasn't living there from the ignored emails for the lady above to start changing address details to move into his flat before the housing manager had even got in contact to ask if anyone was living there. What I basically want to know his do we have any legal standing to claim the rent back from when I first contacted them in August 2023? There is roughly £3000 to come back  
    • dx100uk
      Debt advice

      By dx100uk · Posted

      lowell letter = we've mugged you once - why are you not paying this other debt....😎
    • dx100uk
      Returned NIP Nov23 - Heard Nothing - Now It's been returned as refused and have SJPN Form

      By dx100uk · Posted

      i see you are posting this all over the internet too. here you say it was returned by the safety camera dept UK, Wales Returned NIP Nov23 - Heard Nothing - Now It's been returned as refused and have SJPN Form. Help please? WWW.FTLA.UK UK, Wales Returned NIP Nov23 - Heard Nothing - Now It's been returned as refused and have SJPN Form. Help please?  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

scedminc

By scedminc
in Mortgages and Secured Loans

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4511 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

JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
I would JonCris. However, are you able to establish the "known facts" from a press article. Hardly a reliable source of facts really.

 

At least I'm basing my comments on something & not on something I conjured up at the last moment such as "It might have tenants" when I'm sure such a fact would have been made evident at the time

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
johncris

I suggest you read your mortgage agreement as it has happened very recently in fact

I have read my agreement and three of my kids agreements and there is nothing in them that says they can ask for the money back in full without reason ...They can for a breach of the agreement ie lieing.false info on the application etc taking in tenants without permission drugs den and brothels etc all happen up my end of the woods :pso yes with just cause they can without no ............my last comment on this issue

 

I don't know what your reading but a mortgage like a loan or an overdraft can be recalled at anytime & they don't have to give a reason.........period

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

The 'known' facts are the family are going to lose their home unless they can re mortgage despite never missing a payment

 

The bank WILL have been given the "Right to Reply" by the author to put their side prior to it being published so if you believe in innuendo then fine but if your don't where are the banks 'facts'

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

The only 'known' facts are that they are being evicted & that has not been disputed. If there are any other 'facts' the bank will have had an opportunity to express them if not to the press certainly to the family

 

Of course if you want to make it up as you go fine but please stop trying to justify the unjustifiable .............Better to base your argument on the 'known' facts & not your completely unfounded suppositions....you'll be claiming they're illegal immigrants next

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smarterchick

Smarterchick

Posted
Posted
The only 'known' facts are that they are being evicted & that has not been disputed. If there are any other 'facts' the bank will have had an opportunity to express them if not to the press certainly to the family

 

Of course if you want to make it up as you go fine but please stop trying to justify the unjustifiable .............Better to base your argument on the 'known' facts & not your completely unfounded suppositions....you'll be claiming they're illegal immigrants next

 

 

Whooohoo...slow down guys and gals...(what is it about this thread? :p) Easy does it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
uneverdid

uneverdid

Posted
Posted

Hi guys ive been watching this thread with interest even contributing to it at times. Surely we are all on here to help each other not to criticise, i agree a debate can be healthy at times but i dont think some of the comments are necessary. Lets remember our aim and that is to be sure of our own peace of mind and not to let the Cr***y certain mortgage lenders get the better of us.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Smarterchick

Smarterchick

Posted
Posted
Yep lets get back to the main tenet of this thread .......I think Sue may have b*ggered off again............ hope not perhaps waiting for the dust to settle.............heloooo sue you out there:D

 

He was in his school holidays but he's back at school now, easter holidays are over for him...he's only 15 after all, give him a break...:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suetonius

Suetonius

Posted
Posted
He was in his school holidays but he's back at school now, easter holidays are over for him...he's only 15 after all, give him a break...:D

 

Pee Off... Yes sadly, some of us do have to work during the week.

 

Anyway.. I am going to have my Dinner.. It has been a loooooonnnnnnngggggg DAY !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suetonius

Suetonius

Posted
Posted
Sue welcome back;) If now't else I got your attention:D - Now to the fray

 

I understand you point of view & the very sound reasons for it - but I do believe like many honest people your missing the bigger picture namely that the banks WILL & HAVE lied & not only about securitization I might add

 

Of course it's beneficial to have the SPV liquidated in order to not only recover what you can by repossession but also to trigger the insurance payout. - also the SPV by it's terms of agreement has no intention whatsoever of honouring the term of the originators mortgage contract usually 25 years

 

 

Lol I am very aware of how much bankers, lawyers and accountants lie.

 

However, no matter what lies they tell to us or to each other, they can't magically change an equitable assignment into a legal/absolute assignment.

 

If the assignment is only equitable, the legal right to commence proceedings would remain with the mortgage provider. If assignment has taken place and a notice has not been given to the borrower, the assignment can only ever be equitable.

 

There are really no if's and certainally no but's, either it is equitable or it is legal. If it is legal, there has to be a notice to the borrower.*

 

Assignment + no notice to the borrower = equitable assignment

Assignment + notice to the borrower = legal assignment

 

(I appreciate it is a little more complex, but the basic's are there:D)

 

Even if behind closed doors, it is nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it is legal assignment really. It really doesn't matter, if there is no notice it can only be equitable and the legal rights remain with the mortgage lender.

 

I still don't understand why a house being repossessed rather than the borrower remortgaging would be more desirable to any of the parties involved. If a borrower was to remortgage, they get all their money back, this may not be the case if the house is repossessed.

 

(*this is if s.136 of the Law of Property Act is applicable)

Link to post
Share on other sites
bustthematrix

bustthematrix

Posted
Posted

That's right Uneverdid. We need to keep our emotions in check as we debate.

JC for what it's worth, in my view, SadButTrue has a point. A newspaper article alone is hardly worth basing facts on. We all know that generally, they are sensationalists and their business is to sell NEWS, not to diseminate facts! So they tend to mix facts with hype and leave out important tidbits that may hinder their no.1 purpose i.e. to sell copy. I'm not they're incapable of telling the truth, just that they are not wholly dependable.

 

On this particular issue with RBS, on the face of it, it may seem that RBS are simply doing just that, demanding immediate redemption for no apparent justified reason though something tells me it has to do with the ultra low rate they are on + the fact that it's interest only.

 

I'm NOT saying that's grounds for repossession or any such action AT ALL (after all, there are some Halifax, HSBC, C&G clients on trackers on BBR - 0.5% who are now paying 1p per month), simply that this may have irked someone in the bank.

 

Anyway, it'll go to court and we'll see what the judge makes of Natwest/RBS case. No doubt, the troubled borrowers will make sure the outcome hits the media.

 

For me, the fact that Natwest 'may' be doing this does not proove your point, it comes down to each mortgage contract and what it permits.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dangermouse

Dangermouse

Posted
Posted

Hi all

 

I understand what is being stated, i.e that the only difference between an equitable assigment and a legal assignment is that notice has to be given for it to be 'legal'. However, (& I may be a bit thick!) but if that is the only distinction, it is surely clear that not providing a notice is only a 'device' so that the assignment is not registered at the LR.

 

Therefore if equity's 'rule' is that the law considers that "to be done which ought to be done" is it not unlawful for the notice not to be formally given to the borrower?

 

yours confused

 

 

Dangermouse

Link to post
Share on other sites
foolishgirl

foolishgirl

Posted
Posted
... it is surely clear that not providing a notice is only a 'device' so that the assignment is not registered at the LR.

 

Therefore if equity's 'rule' is that the law considers that "to be done which ought to be done" is it not unlawful for the notice not to be formally given to the borrower?

 

It would be illegal if this is what has taken place dangermouse, but it is that little word 'if' that is causing the debate. Has the (nudge, nudge) assignment actually taken place & in what form & how do you prove it?

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
atwozee

atwozee

Posted
Posted

Assignment + no notice to the borrower = equitable assignment

 

IMO it could also mean absolute assignment has taken place but the assignment is ineffectual until notice is served on the borrower – small difference but important all the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suetonius

Suetonius

Posted
Posted
IMO it could also mean absolute assignment has taken place but the assignment is ineffectual until notice is served on the borrower – small difference but important all the same.

 

Not really no. A notice of assignment is a legal requirement under s136 of the Law of Propert Act 1925.

 

If a legal/absolute assignment is ineffectual because a notice has not been given then it can only be an equitable assignment. It can only be one or the other, either equitable or legal/absolute..

 

It is very black and White with no grey area's

Link to post
Share on other sites
atwozee

atwozee

Posted
Posted
Not really no. A notice of assignment is a legal requirement under s136 of the Law of Propert Act 1925.

 

If a legal/absolute assignment is ineffectual because a notice has not been given then it can only be an equitable assignment. It can only be one or the other, either equitable or legal/absolute..

 

It is very black and White with no grey area's

 

No - sorry - that is your interpretation – s136 states that an absolute assignment is effectual in law if a notice has been served on the borrower – it does not say that an absolute assignment cannot take place otherwise – just that it would be ineffectual in law – not so black and white really IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suetonius

Suetonius

Posted
Posted
No - sorry - that is your interpretation – s136 states that an absolute assignment is effectual in law if a notice has been served on the borrower – it does not say that an absolute assignment cannot take place otherwise – just that it would be ineffectual in law – not so black and white really IMO

 

? if it not effectual in law, how can it therefore be a legal assignment ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
atwozee

atwozee

Posted
Posted
? if it not effectual in law, how can it therefore be a legal assignment ?

 

It would become a legal assignment once the debtor was given notice – that could be anytime after the sale agreement was made between the assignor and the assignee. As I said – s136 would not prevent an absolute assignment taking place just because notice was not served on the borrower.

A lot of your argument rests on the importance of the NoA – that really only becomes important when the assignee wishes to pursue the legal charge – before they pursue the matter through the court they must ensure that notice of the assignment has taken place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suetonius

Suetonius

Posted
Posted
It would become a legal assignment once the debtor was given notice – that could be anytime after the sale agreement was made between the assignor and the assignee. As I said – s136 would not prevent an absolute assignment taking place just because notice was not served on the borrower.

A lot of your argument rests on the importance of the NoA – that really only becomes important when the assignee wishes to pursue the legal charge – before they pursue the matter through the court they must ensure that notice of the assignment has taken place.

 

I mean no disrespect and I am not trying to funny with you. You are aware that an absolute assignment is a legal assignment ?

 

The importance of the notice had been highlighted as the point was raised that the mortgage lender could not take a borrower to court following the securitisation of their mortgage. This is something that I don't agree with

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...