They Got Me After Ten Years

[geoffthechef]

Hi all just want to warn you and tell you my story.. in 1992 i had my house repossessed and we split up as a couple.

I kept low with no contact with my ex for the next few years and then met another partner and got married and had a lovely little girl.

during this time i was working but deliberately kept myself of the voting register.

then in 2001 i get a letter from the bank who i owed money too. (good job i had told the wife all the truth about this but it still came as a great shock) they used a searching company.

they wanted £50.000k from me or they would go to court to get it.. luckily we had not bought our own house in the meantime.

i found out that these banks had 12 years to chase you so was a bit stuck but i had a little luck in that i had been working and had become very ill and was made medically unfit to continue in my work. so what i did was to start to talk to these people and claim poverty...well after lots of arguing we settled on a full and final settlement of one thousand pounds. we told them we had to borrow it off our parents..

so why have i told you all this> because if i had not run and hidden i could of got rid of the debt ages ago by going bankrupt and starting again but at the time i never even thought about it. i would advise everyone to do it now as they do and will chase you up to year 12... so do what i should of done all those years ago and get rid of it by bankruptcy instead of burying my head in the sand.. i was very very lucky to get away with paying 1k from the shortfall....

[Alphageek]

And how did they get around the Statute of Limitations?

[geoffthechef]

I ALWAYS thought it was 12 years? was i had off?

i was not a internet geek then...

 

 

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a lender legally has 12 years in which to contact the borrower to begin the process of obtaining repayment of shortfall debt; this period is usually 5 years in Scotland.

Edited June 24, 2009 by geoffthechef

[alfa1_steve]

Hi Getofthechef

 

What alphageek is refering to is a law which states they can only chase you for six years after that the money is gone.

 

Only in certain circumstances can it be revoked.

 

If you have contacted the loan company the six years would start again ie you got away for 5years 11 months and then you contacted them they can then pursue the debt for a further six years. If the loan was not secured that is was it?

 

Why run from the debt anyway.

 

As far as not putting your name on the voters role wether it be edited or not will not help you stay hidden.

 

Every time you applied for credit you will show up and a tracing company will find you, also they can get a postal match on your name whatever the letter, royal mail supplies this. Any utility company ie n-power will pass on details to other company to help trace debtors.

 

However you have managed to stay hidden for as long is unbeknown to me.

 

If the loan is unsecured the company is trying it on if its secured would need more details.

 

I must point out that i think what you have done ie running away from your debts i heavily disagree with and believe that this is the reason why apr are stupidly high, i will however advise you on your rights but would need some more info first.

[mercyblue]

its 12years for mortgage debt not 6 - which is for "normal" debt

[Suetonius]

Hi Getofthechef

 

What alphageek is refering to is a law which states they can only chase you for six years after that the money is gone.

 

Only in certain circumstances can it be revoked.

 

The law alfa_1steve is referring to is the Limitation Act 1980. However, Mercyblue is correct with regard to mortgage debt, the period is 12 years and not six.

 

20) Time limit for actions to recover money secured by a mortgage or charge or to recover proceeds of the sale of land

 

(1)No action shall be brought to recover—

(a)any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property (whether real or personal); or

(b)proceeds of the sale of land;

after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued.

 

 

Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)

[alfa1_steve]

Hi Suetonius

 

I fully understand the limitation act 1980, as geofthechef did not state wether it was secured or unsecured that is why i asked for clarification.

 

"If the loan is unsecured the company is trying it on if its secured would need more details."

 

This is the reason i asked for more details surrounding the loan if it was secured.

 

Although the the lender can legally peruse the debt for 12 years i think it would be highly unlikely that all the correct paperwork was in place and all the correct procedures had been followed.

 

Geofthechef state's that he managed to get the debt reduced from 50k to 1k, this would lead me to think the paper work was not in order and procedures had not been followed and if it where to go to court they would get nothing so better to accept some money rather than none?

 

Please take time to read posts before replying to say your wrong.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius

 

I fully understand the limitation act 1980, as geofthechef did not state wether it was secured or unsecured that is why i asked for clarification.

 

"If the loan is unsecured the company is trying it on if its secured would need more details."

 

This is the reason i asked for more details surrounding the loan if it was secured.

 

Although the the lender can legally peruse the debt for 12 years i think it would be highly unlikely that all the correct paperwork was in place and all the correct procedures had been followed.

 

Geofthechef state's that he managed to get the debt reduced from 50k to 1k, this would lead me to think the paper work was not in order and procedures had not been followed and if it where to go to court they would get nothing so better to accept some money rather than none?

 

Please take time to read posts before replying to say your wrong.

 

Hello Alfa, it was not my intention to question what you do or don't understand. However, I have noted your comments and taken them on board.

 

I would just like to point out the name of this sub forum though.

 

Mortagage & Secured Loan:D

 

Any credit facility, falling within these two specific classifications, would be subject to section 20 of the 1980 act.

[Justhadenough]

i would advise everyone to do it now as they do and will chase you up to year 12... so do what i should of done all those years ago and get rid of it by bankruptcy instead of burying my head in the sand.. i was very very lucky to get away with paying 1k from the shortfall....

 

Bankruptcy should not be taken lightly; it is not a one size fits all solution.

 

I would agree that if your lender was accepting £1k in settlement of a debt £50k, they had little chance of enforcing the claim

[Tawnyowl]

Hello,Shortfalls,mine was sneaked into my credit report.They didnt and never have showed me how much the house sold for.I read of one couple who had got divorced ,met new partners,and after a few years had bought houses with them.Several years later the letters landed on the mat,causing as you can imagine upset and a few arguments.Money troubles does seem to cause them.They seldom chase straight away but wait hoping you get back on your feet,then get one of their special teams to find you to hack them off again.They will find you,usually its a lot of money we are talking about so its worth their while.I will put this link here hoping it may help someone.If anyones wondering,i went bankrupt wiping the shortfall.Geoffthechef thank goodness you hadnt bought another house.I wish you and your family well for the future Tawnyowl.Debt Factsheets - Mortgage Shortfalls

[geoffthechef]

it was secured debt...mortgage shortfall.....as for the person who said i should not of hidden......blood out of a stone.....and it worked.as iwould of had to pay far more than a grand...plus they gave the house away for 1/2 market prices at the times and put tens of thousand of charges and interest... i never had to apply for credit cards...

[geoffthechef]

Hi Suetonius

 

I fully understand the limitation act 1980, as geofthechef did not state wether it was secured or unsecured that is why i asked for clarification.

 

"If the loan is unsecured the company is trying it on if its secured would need more details."

 

This is the reason i asked for more details surrounding the loan if it was secured.

 

Although the the lender can legally peruse the debt for 12 years i think it would be highly unlikely that all the correct paperwork was in place and all the correct procedures had been followed.

 

Geofthechef state's that he managed to get the debt reduced from 50k to 1k, this would lead me to think the paper work was not in order and procedures had not been followed and if it where to go to court they would get nothing so better to accept some money rather than none?

 

Please take time to read posts before replying to say your wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Please take time to read posts before replying to say your wrong.

 

LOOK at what section this is posted in!!!!! secured debt and mortgage...

so its you who should read..

[enoughisenough]

Needing to keep this necessarily vague for purposes of not alerting the enemy.

 

Say you have a debt of around 600 largely constituted of unlawful charges with a high street. The debt dates back to the mid 90s. Occasional DCAs come and go buying and selling on the debt, but kind of give up. Then out of the blue about 10 years later you receive claim papers from a court a million miles away. The debt has risen to 9k and you are petrified and you bury your head in the sand, hoping it will go away (it rarely does). Because you have no means of paying this 'debt' a charge is secured against your property. About a year later you apply to Mr. Sub -prime who very late in the day finds this charge and thereby adds a further 9k to your loan to clear the charge. The charge is duly cleared. Then the BBC raises everyone's hackles by suggesting that all this time the charges weren't lawful. County courts get deluged and the banks start paying out left right and centre.

 

The banks then throw in the towel and decide to have a test case. You in the meantime have wisened up considerably. What basis for challenge might you have. Limitations Act? UTTCRS. Fraud Act? Any thoughts. You might want this money back as it has ballooned considerably costing you an arm and a leg in mr sub-prime interest.

[supersleuth]

The law alfa_1steve is referring to is the Limitation Act 1980. However, Mercyblue is correct with regard to mortgage debt, the period is 12 years and not six.

 

20) Time limit for actions to recover money secured by a mortgage or charge or to recover proceeds of the sale of land

 

(1)No action shall be brought to recover—

(a)any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property (whether real or personal); or

(b)proceeds of the sale of land;

after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued.

 

 

Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)

 

You are quite correct Suetonius......

 

....But it also may be possible for borrowers to argue that the "right to receive the money accrued" immediately when they took the mortgage out.

 

Most of us humble borrowers don't (or didn't) know, that under the terms of the mortgage contracts, most mortgages become immediately due and payable in full, one month after it's taken out. So, it could be said that the lender's "right to receive the money accrued" one month following the date of the mortgage contract.

 

Thus, the statute of limitations could be said to run from one calendar month after the date of the mortgage loan. This would mean, that if you have your mortgage for say, 3 years, and then you were repossessed, strictly speaking, under the statute of limitations, the lender would only have 9 years to chase you!

 

OK, it's another one of those 'never been litigated' arguments. But it's worth a thought to proffer the defence if you're hunted down after soooo many years. Food for thought.

Edited June 28, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

And another thought - make the lender prove that it has your ORIGINAL DEED. If they can't produce YOUR ORIGINAL DEED then they (strictly speaking) shouldn't be able to sue you again.

 

And if the 'lender' that is chasing you for the debt is not the original contracting lender make them PROVE that they've been lawfully assigned your mortgage deed giving them the right to sue you.

 

It's very likely that after the passage of such a great length of time, they don't have the paperwork to prove your you owe them anything.

 

Which is probably the reason why geoffthechef's lender settled an allegedly £50K debt for a mere £1,000. They're bluffing you!!!

 

Geoffthechef, thank you for sharing your experience so that others can be forewarned and get some ideas of how to deal with these revolting people who (as tawnyowl correctly states) wait for the borrower to recover from the first time they ruin you and then wait for you to financially recover so that they can get a second go to disrupt and ruin your new life. It is good and happy new that you survived their second attack on you and did not cause you any permenant damage. Thanks again for sharing and raising the point.

Edited June 28, 2009 by supersleuth

[Suetonius]

You are quite correct Suetonius......

 

....But it also may be possible for borrowers to argue that the "right to receive the money accrued" immediately when they took the mortgage out.

 

Most of us humble borrowers don't (or didn't) know, that under the terms of the mortgage contracts, most mortgages become immediately due and payable in full, one month after it's taken out. So, it could be said that the lender's "right to receive the money accrued" one month following the date of the mortgage contract.

 

Thus, the statute of limitations could be said to run from one calendar month after the date of the mortgage loan. This would mean, that if you have your mortgage for say, 3 years, and then you were repossessed, strictly speaking, under the statute of limitations, the lender would only have 9 years to chase you!

 

OK, it's another one of those 'never been litigated' arguments. But it's worth a thought to proffer the defence if you're hunted down after soooo many years. Food for thought.

 

Some more food for thought for people that may be in a similar situation (10 years with no contact from lender). You could make a complaint to the FOS. In it's decisions, the FOS is legally required to consider the law. It does not have to apply it.

 

The Ombudsman must make His/Her decision based upon what the consider to be fair and reasonable ( as per FSMA 2000 & FSA Handbok).

 

It could be argued that the Limitations Act 1980, is not fair or reasonable in that it allows a secured lender 12 years. If a former borrower had not been contacted for a period of 10 years, contrary to the little note someone at CAG has added about the FOS, I would suggest people make a complaint to that Service. If they find in your favour, the lender could end up with nothing more from you.

 

Try it, what do you have to lose