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

[cartmell]

Hi there:

 

I have several ME buy to lets and I have been receiving phone call for about the last 18 months trying to get me to meet up. All the calls have been from Mobile numbers and they have not had a particularily nice tone to them. The last one I received was very abrasive. When I asked why the meeting was necessary, when I have been paying all my morgages on time for the last few years ( I have never even been a day late with any of them). I was told that they wanted to look at all my personal financial information and they wanted to inspect all my properties to make sure they were compliant. In addition they wanted copies of all my SHTs.

After reading some of the nightmare stories as to why they might be doing this. It has made me very stressed out. I feel I manage my properties well and always pay what I contractually agreed to pay. But, by 6th sense is telling me that this is not enough for ME. I would like to join an action group for support and input. Please could you let me know how you got on in September 2010 and if there are going to be any more meetings. Thank you.

[mungos mum]

Hi cartmell

 

Have you checked directly with Mortgage Express staff at head office that these calls are being directed by them?

Even though I loath everything about MX, this does seem rather 'fishy'.

We have numerous problems with MX & their recievers but neither have ever called us from a mobile number.

I'm sure that there must be a way of stopping these calls, maybe if you were to do a Subject Access Request you would see who has been given your number and why.

 

Mungos mum

[caro]

Check exactly who is contacting you Cartmell and send them this letter. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter

[patrickq1]

There has been much comment recently highlighting the plight of landlords whose tenants have become insolvent. However, there are indications that the number of landlord insolvencies may increase as the recession evolves and lenders resolve to take action. Whilst landlords are now fairly well versed in the options available to them when a tenant is in default, tenants would be well advised to understand how an insolvent landlord may diminish the value and viability of their own interest in the lease.

Key issues to consider where a landlord becomes insolvent:

 

1. Tenant’s rent deposit
   

Careful drafting is required to ensure that the deposit remains separate from assets forming part of the landlord’s estate, either by being held on trust, or stated to remain property of the tenant and charged to the landlord.

 

1. Impact on lease renewals and rent reviews
   

Relatively little. Administrators and liquidators are allowed to settle rent reviews and enter into lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Court has also held that renewal proceedings should be permitted to continue without delay if the majority of creditors will benefit or be unaffected.

 

1. Landlord’s breach of contract
   

An insolvent landlord may fail to comply with obligations under the lease but it will often be futile for the tenant to issue proceedings in respect of the breach. Instead a tenant should evaluate whether self-help remedies are available and whether it is possible to offset the cost of self-help against outgoings under the lease. A tenant should also consider whether taking such action would breach the lease or leave them exposed to other liabilities (e.g. trespass).

Alternatively, a tenant could look to claim damages from a previous landlord where the insolvent landlord purchased a reversion of the tenant’s interest.

Ultimately, if the failure to comply with obligations is so extensive as to amount to derogation from grant, the tenant may seek to repudiate the lease by arguing that that the breach has substantially deprived the tenant of its enjoyment of the premises.

 

1. Rent payments
   

Despite a landlord’s insolvency, rent remains payable under the lease. However, a tenant will need to ascertain to whom rent should now be paid: this will usually be a liquidator, administrator or CVA supervisor. Where the tenant is a sub-tenant and has received a notice under s6 Law of Distress (Amendment Act) 1908, rent is payable to the superior landlord.

 

1. Superior lease issues
   

Where the landlord is itself a tenant under a superior lease, the superior lease may come to an end with the following consequences:

 

• Surrender: The sub-lease continues on the same terms but is now directed at the superior landlord. This may be good for the sub-tenant who may have fewer obligations but not for the superior landlord if the sub-lease reserved a lower rent than the superior lease.
  
• Forfeiture: The sub-lease falls away and the sub-tenant loses his right to occupy. A court can grant relief if the sub-tenant steps into the insolvent landlord’s shoes. This will probably suit the superior landlord more than the sub-tenant, who may have to pay arrears due under the superior lease and comply with the potentially more onerous superior lease.
  
• Disclaimer by the liquidator: The sub-lease falls away although the sub-tenant can remain in occupation as long as the rent is paid and obligations under the superior lease are performed. This is not ideal for either party as there is no contractual relationship between them unless and until the sub-tenant applies for the superior lease to be vested in itself.
  

Conclusion

It is vital for tenants to be alive to the possibility of landlord insolvency. Leases should be carefully drafted to ensure the safety of the rent deposit and perhaps include a right to break in the event of landlord insolvency. Tenants should also be aware of the steps they can take to remedy breaches by an insolvent landlord and gain early leverage by negotiating directly with liquidators or administrators. Sub-tenants should be alert to discussions which may impact on the future of a superior lease and intervene at the earliest possible stage

[chillinlong]

Hi All,

 

Hope everyone is well.

 

In a bit of a dilemma, a tenant has rung me very concerned a claim for possession has been made against the property for bailiffs to evict "Unknown persons" in the property and bailiffs going in next week. Now I am refusing to inform WS of tenancy details as I want to pay MX directly, they have gone to court for eviction of unknown persons.

 

BUT they have done this in my name with WS address and number. Now I was never made aware of this and never recieved a copy, is this not illegal am I not supposed to recieve a copy? I rang the courts and explained to them at no time I have instructed Drydens to do this. They said to speak to Drydens. But Drydens are saying I am not allowed to speak to them but to speak to WS and I am not allowed anywhere near the property.

 

I am confused now, what are my rights? Is anyone allowed to instigate court actions without my permission. Now the worst thing is the new tenant moved in a couple of weeks ago with a 12 month tenancy! They are going ballistic understandably.

 

Any ideas anyone?

 

Thanks

[diddled]

Receivers act in the mortgagors name and "by his hand"

Ive come across this before, but sorry I dont know the answer

[tonyhuws]

The only thing I can suggest is that you appear in the court and inform the judge of everything that has gone on, however the L. P. A. act 1925 allowes them to do this as they are appointed as your agent. It is completly wrong and Mortgage Express have to be liable. I am sorry I have no answer for you good luck.

[caro]

This is a scandal chillin. Can you contact your barrister about this. How on earth can they be called your agent when you haven't had anything to do with them. I'll flag this up for the site team but I've an awful about this.

 

What reason is being given for the eviction?

 

Who gave them the tenancy?

[mungos mum]

Hi chillin

I'm sorry to say that we had exactly the same thing happen to us last year.

I went with the tenants to CAB & Shelter and they were at a loss as to what to do.

When it came to the court hearing the judge was very sympathetic but said she had no option but to allow the eviction process to go ahead as the receiver had been legally appointed by the lender and had served the paperwork correctly.

The same as you, the only knowledge I had of this was when the tenant contacted me to find out what was going on.

Our tenants (who had been in the property for 10 years paying rent) were eventually evicted, fortunately I did manage to find, through another landlord, a similar house for them to rent.

My house was then sold for £60k less than I paid for it 12 years ago, someone had a bargain.

The whole process is totally immoral.

 

MM

[patrickq1]

a bit distressing that news chilli, i would be thinking along the lines of getting the tennent to raise an appeal or stay against drydens ,since it is in your name you can then write to the court and ask for a hearing alongside the client , at least you can explain to the judge that you had not instigated this act and that this eviction notice has been made by drydens without your knowledge ,also gives you a chance to explain more clearly the concerns you have with this action being perpretated in your name and without your knowledge ,also if you are in credit with this particular mortgage then you feel that an injustice has been actioned under false pretences and they drydens are trying to hoodwink the judiciary and you would prefer to see an example being made of this company since they are acting under another company and not you there instructions have been made by whome at this point you are uncertain because no letters nor norification has been sent to you personally and could the courts please observe that your address is blah blah blah .... i will also look up some references as drydens are known for this sort of thing i have seen it before with them but cant remember where ...

will do some research hopefully caro has some knowledge

patrickq1

dont forget the tennent needs to apply for a stay of execution

[caro]

Who gave the tenant the lease chillin? You or the receiver?

[patrickq1]

also when you can see the barristor can you ask him if you can apply for a Mareva injunction as they are based upon a simple notion; that justice requires the courts to take appropriate steps in appropriate cases to try and ensure that judgments are not rendered valueless by an unjustifiable dissipation of assets.

[chillinlong]

Hi All,

 

Sorry not replied all weekend I lost my phone ...

 

Thanks for all the replies and help it is really good of you all.

 

TonyHuws I agree but the fact that the court order says my name only, I would have thought it should say Recievers acting of behalf of me but it doesnt.

 

Hi Caro, it says eviction for unknown tenants so I presume on basis of trespassing. Tenants are jumping up and down on this and I cant work it out how Drydens have deceptively done this and are getting away with it.

 

They actually this did on another property whereas they got a court order for a previous tenant to be evicted who they knew was already gone but a new tenant had moved in. The bailiff went in for the previous tenant with the police and stormed the new tenant, changed locks and kicked the new tenant out even though he had a valid tenancy that had started two weeks before, they surprised him whislt he was sleeping. The tenant was so distraught that he vanished after this I struggled to get in contact with him. Tenant actually told them he had a valid tenancy and the representative of WS said that landlord knew all about this and there was nothing the tenant could do as they have a court order to evict everyone. Bailiff told him to get out and with the police in the background there was not much he could do, they would not even let him get his things out!!!!

 

I have not provided Drydens nor WS a copy of the tenancy as I wanted to bring this to a head but they are trying new tactics each time.

 

Unfortunately the arrears are quite high on this but this would go down if they allow the tenant to stay there. This mortgage was 9 pence a month for a whole year and the reciever failed to collect a single month rent for more than a year on this property hence the reaosn why I took over allowing the arrears to mount up with their huge fake costs. they have charged another 15k for a year on top of the mortgage! On the statement it shows (Legal costs), I have written numerous letters to get them to clarify what has been all this monies been spent on and they will not reply at all, can you believe their arrogance?

 

Hi Mungos mum, it is so wrong isnt it, it is laughable and surely a huge case only if a solicitor is willing to take this on...

 

Hi PAtrick I will ask him these questions but the costs are mounting up and we dont seem to be getting any response lol.

 

Best thing about it, I tried to explain to the courts and they said refer to drydens who acted on my behalf. then drydens refuse to speak to me telling me to stay away frmo the property. But the mortgage terms and conditions states I have to ensure the proeprty is maintained and not allowed to go into worse condition... Cant win!

 

Going to try and cause a stir anywhere with this in the morning... Will update you all very soon.

 

Thanks again all

[caro]

So it would appear that you don't have the right to let your own property despite the fact that the agent hasn't managed to find one. Have you sent a SAR? At least that will only add a tenner and should give you info on how the costs have arisen.

 

BTW you said the mortgage was 9 pence. Should that be 9%?

[chillinlong]

Hi Caro,

 

Yes I sent a SAR, not recieved all the paperworks hence the reason to complaints to ICO, ICO stated no further action will be taken.

 

No because of discounted period, mortgage was 9 pence per month for over 12 months. But the failed to collect rent during this whole period, had they managed properly. The arrears would have been cleared in 4 months. but they let it escalate so badly the proeprty now in arrears over 12k!

 

It is a grey area whether I have a right to relet the property or not, I think they have a right to collect rents hence the "Reciever role" which they dont do anyway. But they are preventing the rents coming in the first place.

 

Thanks

[tonyhuws]

We were in a simmilar position Mortgage express appointed templeton on a property of ours which was two months in arrears, they put a tenant in at below the market rate. Mortgage express had purchased this mortgage from GMAC and at the end of the 3 yr fix it was to revert to the SVR. Mortgage express have a seperate SVR for mortgages they purchased from other lenders linked to LIBOR. this had the effect of doubling the interest charged each month. Their SVR for properties bought through MX is 2.25% mortgage bought from other lenders is 4.75%

Because of this arrears built up under templeton to £7,000+ they evicted the tenants and sold the property at £40,000 below value in todays market. The original mortgage was £133,000 we were told with costs we owed £142,000 but have now been landed with a shortfall debit of £106,000.

Have no idea how this figure was arrived at, but as this has just happened we have yet to find out.

The courts have to except that once appointed the LPA are you as the Law of property act says that. you have no rights and cannot without the permission of the LPA put a tenant into the house. Yopu have to work with them or they will evict and charge you all their costs, which as they do not have to pay they rack up.

Contact you M. P. contact you euro MP, contact the justice department, the press and money bax live.

Anything you can do to alter this act which only goverment owned mortgage companies use.

Also complain to the regulator for the LPA or its parent company, kick up as much fuss as poss.

Keep your chin up it is a nightmare but others know what you are going through and can say you are not alone.

[tonyhuws]

sorry another point I forgot to mention, when the LPA's evict the tenant you become responsible for the council tax, you have no access to the property or any means of making income from the property but the LPA's have no responsibility to pay the council tax and neither does the lender. The council will take out a liability order against you for none payment.

They have it all ways and Mortgage Express sneak into the terms and conditions which I am sure your solicitor never pointed them out to you even more conditions to remove your rights under the law of property act 1925.

[caro]

Sorry to hear what's happened to you Tony. Wish I could do more than offer you sympathy but I think you're right about complaining to as many people and organisations as you can.

 

The law needs to be changed.

[Ed999]

Chillinlong has a buy to let mortgage which fell into arrears. Mortgage Express appointed a receiver under the Land Property Act to take over management of the property, but they've failed to let it out, failed to collect rent etc so the arrears are much worse. I think Dryden's are the solicitors being used to evict the tenants who chillin put into his property so he could get rent to pay the mortgage. Although he owns the property he had no right to give them a tenancy so the tenants are being evicted for trespass. I believe it's a residential property

 

 

Chillinlong, you need to consult a Solicitor immediately.

 

Where a mortgagee takes possession of mortgaged premises, under the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925, in a case of mortgage arrears, the mortgagee continues to have certain legal obligations to the borrower, as mortgagee in possession.

 

In this case it is possible that the mortgagee is in breach of its statutory obligations, implied into the mortgage by the 1925 Act, if it has failed to take any - or any proper - steps to mitigate its loss by either selling or letting the premises. However, if it intends to sell the premises it will need vacant possession in order to do so.

 

 

Would you please clarify whether the mortgagee's solicitors have obtained a court order for possession; or whether you have voluntarily allowed the mortgagee into possession.

 

If the mortage payments on a dwelling are more than two months in arrears, the mortgagee normally has a statutory right to apply to the court for possession.

 

Or if the mortgage contains a condition that the mortgagee must consent to any letting during the mortgage term, then you would be in breach of contract if you let to tenants without the lender's consent, and the lender could normally obtain a court order for possession.

 

 

If you, as borrower, have ceased to have a present right to possession, then you have ceased to have a right to let the premises. In that case, any tenants who you now allow into occupation would be trespassers, and a court order might be granted to the mortgagee by the court to evict them as trespassers.

 

If the mortgagee intends to sell the premises, it has the contractual right to do so even if the sale will not pay off the whole of the mortgage debt; and naturally its first step would be to obtain vacant possession. If the mortgagee has a present intention to sell the premises, in order to repay the loan, it will inevitably need vacant possession in order to do so.

 

If the mortgagee does not have a present intention to sell, but intends to let the premises pending a recovery of house prices, it seems odd that it would seek to evict a tenant who is paying rent, unless it takes the view that the rent is below market rates or that the terms of the letting are disadvantageous to it in some other respect. It is this possibility that particularly needs to be discussed by you with your Solicitor, although you should also discuss with him all the other points I have outlined.

[patrickq1]

very well particularized. i can see another few substantial questions following on from this the case. can be made against both companies for lack of due diligence

and care....this you can fight in the court room on a separate basis bringing the the case of exceptionable negligence .in which your are possibly of a mind to Sue both companies jointly and singularly for excessive financial harm to your investment in the property , this opens doors to you getting all the data you have been seeking it puts both companies on notice to abide by the ciurt procedure rules of engagement ,also giving rise to the possibility of obtaining a stay of execution of your tenant ,their failure to respond to your requests and your offers of mediation have failed to be recognized, due to the refusal of both companies they have failed to have a relationship with you they do not acknowledge you exist ..

i could go on

patrickq1

[chillinlong]

Hi Ed99 and PAtrick,

 

Thanks for your helpful comments.

 

The answers to the questions:

Would you please clarify whether the mortgagee's solicitors have obtained a court order for possession; or whether you have voluntarily allowed the mortgagee into possession. The recievers solicitors drydens have obtained a court order for possession for trespass against "Unknown persons" ie the tenants.

 

Cannot see on the Ts and Cs that Mortgagee has to approve tenancies. it was written for a residential mortgage as it states I must not move out of the property .

 

I liked this point:

If the mortgagee does not have a present intention to sell, but intends to let the premises pending a recovery of house prices, it seems odd that it would seek to evict a tenant who is paying rent, unless it takes the view that the rent is below market rates or that the terms of the letting are disadvantageous to it in some other respect. It is this possibility that particularly needs to be discussed by you with your Solicitor, although you should also discuss with him all the other points I have outlined.

 

The market rent is more than the mortgage payment! Hence dont need to sell as such a bad time in the market, but they really want to sell now. So they can make money and everyone else loses severe monies ie us and the taxpayers. Daylight robbery.

[Ed999]

The recievers solicitors drydens have obtained a court order for possession for trespass against "Unknown persons" ie the tenants.

 

No, I want to know whether the mortgage lender - or anyone on its behalf - has obtained a possession order, from the court, against you? I need to know the basis for your allegation that you are banned from going near the property ("drydens refuse to speak to me telling me to stay away frmo the property").

 

 

Cannot see on the Ts and Cs that Mortgagee has to approve tenancies. it was written for a residential mortgage as it states I must not move out of the property.

 

A condition that you must not move out of the property is the same as a condition that you are not allowed to let it out to tenants. It is evidently NOT a buy-to-let mortgage, then, for those are not burdened with a ban on letting to tenants - obviously!

 

If you have let to a tenant, in breach of the mortgage contract, that breach of contract typically entitles the mortgagee to obtain a possession order against the tenant.

 

 

dont need to sell as such a bad time in the market, but they really want to sell now.

 

But that is not what you said. You said "the[y] failed to collect rent during this whole period", implying that the mortgagee is seeking to let, rather than sell, the property.

 

If they are in fact seeking to sell it, and you are obstructing the sale by letting it to unauthorised tenants, it is no wonder you are in difficulties.

 

But you have yet to explain how their power of sale became exerciseable: have they obtained a possession order against you?

[chillinlong]

Good point Ed, there is no possession order against me from the court, however they have informed me it is underway currently but as yet to be seen. Therefore I should be allowed to speak to Drydens about my properties are you saying? It is a BTL mortgage from Mortgage Express, however the terms and condition have been written for a residential mortgage (Most of it anyway). Yes they failed to collect rent for a long time, failed to manage the maintenence and tenants which then caused tenants to leave. They spent huge sums on trying on repair nonsencical issues but did not resolve anything. Now with no tenants I got them tenanted again and repaired damages. They have recently decided to mitigate further losses that they will now be selling and to remove the tenants. At the beginning they said they will try to let until arrears are clear which they have never done so it is at a position whereas it is justifiable for MX with WS explanations of "the property is losing money therefore we need to sell" ie covers WS back to sell at a huge shortfall whereas the market rent is more than the mortgage payments therefore it does not make sense to sell in these times when the arrears can be cleared via the rents.

[caro]

This info rebel11 kindly found may help your tenants chillin and also give you a bit more time to try and resolve matters. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

 

I'm not clear from your response if your property has been put on the market.

[patrickq1]

also here is the FSA report concerning berbon and walkers

 

Thank you for your email dated 25 March 2011. I understand that you have made request under the Freedom of Information Act as to whether Barbon Insurance Group is the parent company of Walker Singleton. It is important to note that as this information is already in the public domain we have not treated your request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. In my response I will explain the regulatory relationship that Barbon Insurance Group has with Walker Singleton and provide you with some useful sources of information.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) maintains a record of all the firms, individuals and other bodies that fall under our regulatory jurisdiction under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. Having reviewed the FSA Register I can confirm that Walker Singleton (Property Management) Limited was a Appointed Representative of Barbon Insurance Group Limited. An appointed representative acts as an agent for their principal in this case Barbon Insurance Group Limited. The principal must be a firm that is FSA authorised. The Principal must accepts full responsibility including any liabilities that might arise for ensuring that the AR complies with the FSA's regulation. There must be a written contract between the Principal and the AR documenting this arrangement. For your future reference I have included below the entry for Walker Singleton (Property Management) Limited which details this:

 

www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmPrincipals.d...

 

Further details of the ownership structure between the two firms (as opposed to the regulatory relationship) can be found by reviewing the records for the firms on the Companies House register. For your convenience I have included a link to this below:

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a1d69e...