Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!

[Bombs Away]

ok all

heres a live one

around 2.4m of lending on property

that realisticly today wouldnt fetch 1m at auction.

loan rate is unsustainable at 7.25% after r and m,voids,etc

lpas appointed,bank agrees to a meeting.

do we:

a)go in guns blazing -demanding new rate,breakage costs added to arrears.

b)tell them we'll work in conjunction with lpas and fear for 5 years theyll come after you?

c)ask them wipe off 1.2m off debt,and grant new lower rate?

 

any takers?

 

BOMBS AWAY

[mungos mum]

Hi Caro

 

We realised it would be the cost for a tradesman....but honestly, a tradesman to change a lightbulb?

Bills such as this are being added to our accounts all the time & no-one gives a toss, it really is money for 'old rope'.

 

What makes me really cross is that the receiver stated in a letter that 'he will run our properties in the same manner we ran them'. Yeah right. What makes it worse is that they hide behind a cloak of 'respectability' because they are Chartered surveyors. There is nothing respectable about being a receiver.

 

When we managed the properties, we were quite capable of changing lightbulbs ourselves, in fact the AST states that the tenants should replace lightbulbs themselves.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to rant but they really do take the p**s.

 

I would love to have the money to afford to bring a serious case against the receivers to Court. Trouble is it seems as though it will take a change of law to MAKE them behave in a responsible manner.

I can't think of any other organisation who would be allowed to get away with such appalling disregard to common decency.

They must be the last of the great un-touchables, in law anyway.

 

Sorry again for the rant

Mungos Mum

Edited May 17, 2010 by mungos mum
added bit

[mungos mum]

Hi Bombs Away

 

We've been debating very similar questions ourselves, could really do with a crystal ball.

Have you put together any proposals, worst case senario & best case senario? Just to see how things look on paper.

The thing is if they do not work with you, what will they achieve? sure they'll get £1 mill of their money back but there is (I presume) no way you will ever be able to re-pay the shortfall of the outstanding £1.4 mill.

 

For us it's finding a way of convincing the bank that they are better off working with us & eventually, over time, getting their money back. After all the press love this sort of stuff at the moment don't they?

 

We don't feel that we could ever work along side the lpa, as you know, they are outright crooks & we do not feel we could ever trust them.

 

I'm sure some other caggers will come along soon with their thoughts...in the end you can only do what you feel is best for you.

Mungos mum x

[chillinlong]

£250 to call somebody out to open the windows for mine! I nearly fall over on some of the invoices I have seen.

 

Worst thing about it is I tell themm of cheaper alternatives but they still dont listen, it is daylight robbery. They just blatantly dont care and genuinely make things worse with a complete disregard duty of care.

 

Fags no good for you, hope the bypasses go ok.

 

thanks for both of your helps postgg, caro and Patrick! That CPR stuff looks good. I am working on all this tomorrow so hopefully I will come back with an update soon.

 

Thanks again everyone.

[Bombs Away]

Hi all

recieved this from BJB LPAs

However, I must warn you we are being advised by tenants that, as recently as this Saturday (15/05/2010), you have accessed the properties to advise occupiers not to deal with BJB Lettings and instead to continue to deal with you. This is clearly an unacceptable position and we have no choice other than to refer this situation to the Society's legal advisers. If an amicable dialogue in this matter is to be established it is imperative you immediately cease contacting the tenants residing in these properties.

Bombs Away

[patrickq1]

what society are they refering to...

[mungos mum]

Hi patrickq

As per your previous post, I've been in touch with land registry to ask how I go about registering that there is a problem or dispute with my properties.

They've come back to me saying that in reality the only disputes that can be registered against a property are boundary disputes, any thoughts on this?

 

Thanks

MM x

[chillinlong]

Hi mungos mum, you can register a unilateral notice. then register against the property that you have a dispute with this property, they cannot sell while it is registered.

 

If it is strong enough they will refer to adjuciator and can take some time . In other words gives you time to do what you need to organise.

 

Search for a unliatleral form on the land registry and then get it checked by a solicitor before you send. Make sure it sounds as strong as possible as they have to review before they allow.

 

Good luck!

 

Bombs Away, please dont take this the wrong way it is probably worth starting a new post if yours is with a seperate lender and seperate LPAs not related to these cases, then it prevents any confusions... and it might be beneficial advice specific to your case aswell. Good luck!

[mungos mum]

Hi Chillinlong

 

Thanks for that, I will certainly check out unilateral notices. Our solicitor is pretty good, he gets us to do all the ground work, thus saving money, and then checks things over for us so we don't end up in the mire. He seems to be one of the good guys.

Have you applied this to any of your properties?

Will certainly let you know how we get on, not just with this but with everything else thats also going on.

Best wishes

MM x

[patrickq1]

S. 36 OF AJA 1970:

A GENERAL DISCRETION TO ADJOURN ENFORCEMENT OF “ALL MONIES CHARGES”

Summary

 

As everyone is now aware, mortgage lenders are taking an aggressive approach to possession proceedings.

 

Mortgagees cite the existence of an “all monies” charge and assert that there is no discretion to suspend.

 

However, advisors to debtors should be aware that – overdrafts apart - there is usually a discretion to suspend or adjourn even with an all monies charge:

 

· All loans involve the deferment of repayment of principal and therefore s. 36 of AJA 1970 and s. 8 of AJA 1973 apply to them even where there is an all monies charge securing the loan. Royal Bank of Scotland v Miller [2002] QB 255 should be brought to the court’s attention.

 

· It is only where a claim to possession is based on an on demand overdraft secured by an all monies charge that the general discretion under s 36 and s 8 does not apply.

· Even with an on demand overdraft the court can adjourn/suspend if there is a likelihood of the overdraft being paid off within a reasonable period. If the amount due under the overdraft is relatively modest the court may be persuaded so do so.

Background

 

The Payne Committee (Cmnd. 3909, pars. 1345 – 1432) reported on the position of mortgagors in possession proceedings. Such mortgages included the “ordinary well-known transaction” whereby a purchaser or owner of property raises money on the security of property to enable him to complete the purchase or later to make capital available for his use” (par. 1350) [emphasis added]. The Payne Committee recommended that there be a general discretion to suspend such possession proceedings in respect of dwelling-houses (par. 1390).

 

To implement these recommendations, s 36 of AJA 1970 gives the court a discretion to adjourn or suspend possession proceedings if it appears that the mortgagor is likely within a reasonable period of time to pay off the sums due under the mortgage.

 

However s 36 of AJA 1970 – as drafted - does not provide much protection for the borrower under a loan where all principal is payable on default: Halifax Building Society v Clark [1973] Ch 307.

 

As almost all loan/mortgage agreements provide for repayment of principal on default, Parliament brought in s 8 of AJA 1973.

 

S 8 of AJA 1973 applies the discretion under s 36 of AJA 1970 to mortgages of a dwelling house where “the mortgagor is entitled or is to be permitted to pay the principal sum secured by instalments or otherwise to defer payment of it in whole or in part” but the principal is payable on default.

 

Deferment of Principal

 

As a result the courts have held that the relevant question is whether the agreement provides for deferment of principal. If so, there is a discretion to suspend or adjourn.

 

· A loan taken out for the purpose of the purchase of a dwelling house with payments of principal and interest over the period of the mortgage is expressly covered by s 8 of AJA 1973.

 

· A loan for a fixed period which contemplates payment of the principal at the term of the loan (endowment mortgage) is subject to s 8 of AJA 1973: Bank of Scotland v Grimes [1985] 1 QB 1179.

 

· Where a loan for a fixed period is entered into which contemplates repayment of the principal at maturity (e.g., a business loan with balloon payment), s 8 of AJA 1973 applies: Royal Bank of Scotland v Miller [2002] QB 255 at 262D – 265C.

 

· By parity of reasoning with RBS v Miller a business loan secured on a dwelling house which contemplates payment of interest and principal by instalments is covered by s 8 of AJA 1973 as there is provision for deferment of principal by instalments.

 

· Where an “on demand” overdraft is secured by a charge the wording of s 8 of AJA does not apply. There is no provision for deferment of principal. Therefore the court looks to the full amount payable on demand: Habib Bank v Tailor [1982] 1 WLR 1218. It should not be forgotten that the court can nevertheless exercise its discretion under s 36 of AJA 1970.

 

Mortgagees’ Arguments

 

Lenders sometimes submit that the purpose of the relevant provisions was to protect those who were taking out the loan for the purpose of purchasing it (i.e., the traditional owner/occupier of the mortgaged property). Therefore the protection should not be extended to those who take out a business loan over the property: they were not intended to be protected. Such a submission is clearly against the Payne Committee’s recommendations.

 

Further, in RBS v Miller the Court of Appeal expressly held that s 8 applied to a secured business loan. The crucial point was that the purpose of the legislation was to protect mortgagors of dwelling houses (per Dyson LJ at 261 B-C) which Mrs Miller was. It did not matter that the charge secured her liabilities under a business loan.

 

All Monies Charge

 

The phrase “all monies charge” is often invoked by lenders. Now an “all monies” charge usually provides that all debts however they arise are charged on the debtor’s property (that is how an overdraft becomes charged on the property). However, that does not deal with the separate issue as to whether there is deferment of principal (the answer to which can only be in the loan agreement – if any).

 

It will be noted that the loans in Bank of Scotland v Grimes and RBS v Miller were all monies charges: and yet the Court of Appeal nevertheless found that s. 8 applied. The court should look therefore not at the form of the charge but at the terms of the underlying loan.

 

Overdrafts

 

It is sometimes submitted by lenders that the existence of arrears under an on demand overdraft means that an order for sale should be made as of right.

 

There are two points to bear in mind. First, depending on the amount - even if there is an on demand overdraft - there may be occasions when in fact that sum (usually considerably smaller than the sum owing under a loan agreement) might be payable by the debtor within a reasonable period.

 

Second, the court should only look at the sum payable under the overdraft when considering the likelihood of repayment within a reasonable period. If there are – say - arrears of £5000 on the overdraft facility and £100,000 on the loan agreement (by accelerated principal) the court should only consider whether the £5000 is payable within a reasonable time under s 36. It is entitled to apply s 8 of AJA 1973 in respect of the loan agreement.

[patrickq1]

Hi Chillinlong

 

Thanks for that, I will certainly check out unilateral notices. Our solicitor is pretty good, he gets us to do all the ground work, thus saving money, and then checks things over for us so we don't end up in the mire. He seems to be one of the good guys.

Have you applied this to any of your properties?

Will certainly let you know how we get on, not just with this but with everything else thats also going on.

Best wishes

MM x

Judicial Studies Board Website

[chillinlong]

Thanks again Patrick.

 

Went through all this info today again, and phew what a thread! so much information to gather my printer went into overload. Picture starting to become clearer now for the solid action plan to be developed.

 

Time for the property information to be gathered next on WS and MX cock ups. this starts tomorrow.

 

Now as I understand an LPA Reciever ie WS is supposed to carry out all essential repairs on a property and then invoice MX who then adds onto my mortgage debt. Now the process accordingly is conflicting with this usual procedure.

 

I am told WS now have to get MX to approve of works costs which are normally sky high rocket prices before they lift a finger. This to me sounds the wrong way, the LPA Reciever ie WS should be deciding what works is imminent and then invoice MX for it.

 

In one case, there was a lot of emergency repairs that needed to be done on a property due to neglect from WS partially. Now they went to MX who then refused to pay for works. So the LPA Reciever WS resigned from the proeprty so that MX could repossess the property because he has no money. Is this right? are they allowed to take over and then resign soon as they know it is a little difficult one. So now I am left with the broken pieces to pick up a huge expensive bill to repair and no letter whatsoever from MX to confirm why or what has happened.

 

The best thing is WS cock up by saying they resign and then in another letter say that MX have instructed them to not continue. Both dated the same day but conflicting reasons.

 

I found invoices for their preferred contractors charging for quotes! Just to measure up, not surprising if they are instructing contractors from the other side of the country to measure up for a window!

 

Now MX say that they do not interfere with WS on working exit strategies but I have found otherwise. Surely this is wrong again..

 

Problem is LPA has so many laws to protect them that they think they can screw everyone over and make numerous amounts of money. Drydens solicitors who act for them are just as bad, so many invoices that I really do not understand what they have been used for.

 

I question MX as to why funds are smaller then rents that should be coming in from WS. The answer I get from MX is they do not know however questions like these should be asked to WS, but they never respond to my emails! Just blatantly taking the mickey and they are enjoying every moment in their cushy lives ruining peoples lives. MX are responsible for allowing this to happen and I aim to go all out to get these practices highlighted as much as possible.

 

I seriously think a class action would make a very strong case with common grounds, therefore I suggest all people who are interested in joining along with my case please drop me a PM with your details and I will give you a ring and see if we can help. I am already doing a lot of work along with great helpful contributors of this posts making such a vast difference therefore it will benefit everyone in similiar positon with the same lender to urgently consider joining and minimise costs and make their legal case a lot more effective.

 

Mungos mum, I have done this before with other properties and has worked for me. However I have not done with MX properties but I aim to do this once I have worked out all me angles. It does cost to register the notices therefore I feel it is better in getting everything prepared first.

 

Thanks again everyone.

[patrickq1]

 

in response to your letter dated (xxxxxxxx) *1*

i take note you shall now be considering through legal counsel what actions you may take ,before you do this i wish to remind you following on from your letter that you have now considered it to be acceptable and to forward to my CORRECT ADDRESS and not to (THE OCCUPIER)

i was offered no chance to consider seeking legal council or applying to the Court for a stay of excecution to allow the Mortgage pre-action protocotol be followed.in this form

(N123_) both yourselves and Mortgage Express have been behaving in an obstructive and evasive manner. that you were aware that this proceedure was unlikely to reach me in time to remedy the situation,Now that i have taken certain actions that you find uncomfortable you at last have decided to respond,

as noted above in CPR GUIDANCE RULES N123 i would be grateful for you to now respond under the CPR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT see CPR 31.16 *2* .and forward to me THE CONTRACT you have with MORTGAGE EXPRESS for the reason i must be party to this said contract and also to make available for inspection all data you have concerning the repairs to the properties that you have been invoicing and for my appraisal so that i can determine the validity of such bills .

i have now applied to the court for a STAY for the following reasons as set out above ...

signed

blah blah blah

 

hopefully CARO can clean this up in a more legal setting something along these lines

patrickq1

 

(*1*)

However, I must warn you we are being advised by tenants that, as recently as this Saturday (15/05/2010), you have accessed the properties to advise occupiers not to deal with BJB Lettings and instead to continue to deal with you. This is clearly an unacceptable position and we have no choice other than to refer this situation to the Society's legal advisers. If an amicable dialogue in this matter is to be established it is imperative you immediately cease contacting the tenants residing in these properties.

*2* attach CPR 31.16 i think caro can help you draft this order for cpr 31.16

Edited May 19, 2010 by patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Tut Tut Chilli 1.30 In Morning Can You Not Sleep Lol

IT IS BETTER THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE WORM,THIS GIVES YOU TIME TO ACT...OUT THE REST OF THE DAY

[chillinlong]

But I am still up and ready 8am every morning. It is just getting to the office . Trying to understand is the letter above for the likes of us to send now?

 

Thanks again.

[patrickq1]

i was thinking bombs away lol for the letter but yes if you have had simmallar to this then it needs to be done,if you have had properties snatched from you without your knowledge absolutely yes,you need to apply to the courts for a stay of excecution to halt the actions they have taken,you will also need a plan for recovering the monies owed and how to pay back the arears, the court should only consider whether the sum of £xxxxx is payable within a reasonable time under s 36. It is entitled to apply s 8 of AJA 1973 in respect of the loan agreement

hope you can understand that mungos mum may be able to get her solicitor or any solicitor who is an expert in property loans,i think also Caro has knowledge on these problems..

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/mortgages-power-sale.htm

http://www.naea.co.uk/uploads/news/MOJ%20Powers%20of%20sale%2026.3.10.doc

some intresting tit bits ...

also might be worth joining ARLA

[chillinlong]

Thanks Patrick. We could have a lot more reasonable chance of paying faster if we managed the properties ourselves.

 

I think maybe the next step is to take over from WS? Send letters to all tenants confirming that I am taking over and rents to be paid to me? Only thing is I dont want to scare the tenants but I want to reiterate to them that they need to pay to me. The way WS have done it is very strong worded letters syaing they will have to pay rents twice if they continue paying me.

[patrickq1]

then you need to apply for a court order for a stay of excecution,

also make an immediate report to the FOS.under section 8 of the protocol

 

Paragraph 2.1 states the aims of the protocol:

Ensure that a lender and borrower act fairly and reasonably with each other to resolve any matters concerning both mortgage and home purchase plan arrears;

Encourage more pre-action contact between the lender and the borrower in an effort to reach an agreement;

If an agreement cannot be reached, enable efficient use of the court’s time and resources.

Paragraph 1.1 says that the court will normally expect the parties to observe this behaviour before the start of a possession claim.

The court may take into account non-compliance with an applicable protocol under the CPR ‘if, in the opinion of the court, non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have been needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred’.

 

Financial Ombudsman Service

By paragraph 8 a lender should consider postponing the start of a possession claim if the borrower has made a genuine complaint to the Financial Ombudsman about the potential possession claim. If the lender won’t wait, it must give its reasons to the borrower at least five business days before commencing proceedings.

Inform the court

Paragraph 9 requires the parties ‘if requested by the court’ to explain the actions that they have taken to comply with the protocol. Logically, the lender who has received little or no communication from the borrower will have little difficulty in doing this.

 

New pre-action protocol for mortgage possession claims | The Law Gazette

[patrickq1]

Matters occurring after judgment: stay of execution, etc.

Rule 11

 

Without prejudice to Order 47, rule 1, a party against whom a judgment has been given or an order made may apply to the court for a stay of execution of the judgment or order or other relief on the ground of matters which have occurred since the date of the judgment or order, and the court may by order grant such relief, and on such terms, as it thinks just.

 

 

Forms of writs

 

Rule 12

 

(1) A writ of fieri facias must be in such of the Forms Nos.53 to 63 in Practice Direction 4 as is appropriate in the particular case.

 

(2) A writ of delivery must be in Form No.64 or 65 in Practice Direction 4, whichever is appropriate.

 

(3) A writ of possession must be in Form No.66 or 66A in Practice Direction 4, whichever is appropriate.

 

(4) A writ of sequestration must be in Form No.67 in Practice Direction 4.

[mungos mum]

Hi patrickq

In our case &, if I remember correctly chillins case, the lender has made no attempt to re-possess the properties.

Instead they have appointed the lpa under the power of attorney clause in the contract and from then on allow (they do have knowledge of the lpa's appalling practices) the receivers to empty the properties of tenants & then sell them out BMV.

If by chance any of the properties make a profit when sold, then the lender applies the surplus across the remaining properties in the portfolio. They are doing this under their 'all monies charge' clause.

This is why we have not been able to challenge the lender in Court. regarding re-possessions.

MM x

[patrickq1]

this is where you need to challenge them ME... USE AS YOUR WITNESS (ME)so there statements and letters will be vital

when it comes to a court case,the first case will be against WS for GROSS MIS MANAGEMENT AND LOSSES .

so you need to start the ball rolling with the CPR 31.16 sent to both ME and WS also Rydalls if they are involved ,with this they need to reveal there data to you ,you need to be specific on all data they hold including e mails recorded phone conversations,invoices arrears charges every thing you can think of,

i will see if i can find one already made out this then will give you an idea how to write one up,this will cause them problems oh remember all screenprints and mailed letters allrecorded proof of deliveries ..cause i am geussing they sent the notices out to the occupier of the properties this way they know you will 99 times out of 100 you will not receive the notices..this is against the CPR guidance as ive mentioned before

[mungos mum]

patrickq, you really are a star, thanks for all your help.

Do you not get fed up with having to explain the basics to us, the great un-educated?

Sent you a pm earlier but I think that maybe gremlins got to the words before they reached you, as looking at the message now it's all over the place.

Again, thanks for your support

MM x

[patrickq1]

failure to disclose a material fact

JUST A THOUGHT

Call the Land REgistry and ask them for a copy of your Mortgage Deed. The Land Registry will have a copy of your Mortgage Deed on their records. When you get the copy of your Mortgage Deed, check to see that it actually the Mortgage Deed that you signed and check the dates.ask the Land Registry to provide you with a copy of the TR4 that me sent to the Land Registry such that they became registered as the proprietor. The Land Registry TR4 form is a form that is used to transfer the legal title of one mortgage proprietor to another.Also, as respects "third party costs", these are actually at law not third parties acting for the lender. These costs are incurred by you. This is the result of your having signed (in the contract) an irrevocable power of attorney to the lender. This POA allows the lender to appoint these third parties ON YOUR BEHALF. Which means that the third parties are acting for you and therefore these third parties have a duty to you.

 

[On this POA issue however, there could be another argument in that, it is questionable at law whether or not the POA that you granted the original lender is transferrable to a new lender

[patrickq1]

patrickq, you really are a star, thanks for all your help.

Do you not get fed up with having to explain the basics to us, the great un-educated?

Sent you a pm earlier but I think that maybe gremlins got to the words before they reached you, as looking at the message now it's all over the place.

Again, thanks for your support

MM x

easy cure for that is write it out in word then transfer it to your notepad/book then paste on here from notepad