Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4021 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

I was in our local council office yesterday discussing council tax and asked about repossessed properties in the hands of a receiver, local answer (London Borough of Sutton) is if you are NOT the legal owner of the property and do not live there you are NOT liable for council tax on it, the Receivers are liable... seems to be a bit of an issue anyway but the guy I spoke to was very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The other question was if a property was repossessed, has no personal items of yours in it and no gas, electric and water due to being turned off at time of repossession is it classed as 'habitable and liable for council tax'. The answer was a categorical no - apparently you are only liable for council tax on a repossessed property up to the point your personal possessions are removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax exemption seems to rely on the individual councils.

In my experience some councils accept that once a receiver is appointed there is no point in chasing the owner for the council tax, others have been far harder about this and despite meeting with council staff and proving that the properties are in the hands of the receivers they (correctly) insist that the law states unless a property has actually been repossessed (which ours haven't) then we are liable for all council tax payments until such time as the receiver decides to sell.

We now have CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax on the properties 'managed' by the receivers which could result in us being sent to prison.

Just another nail in the coffin of buy to let landlords.

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a question that has been asked and i am presuming that you are still responsible for the council tax, due to your name being still on the register at the land registry , but it is arguable that the receiver is responsible and he should make every endeavour to make sure the bill is paid , if not why not so the responsibility would need clarification with MX

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because your name is still on the Land Registry it does not mean you are the legal owner/occupier of the property, it is the OCCUPIER in many cases who is responsible for Council Tax, not for the legal owner (although some councils persist in persuing the legal owner for the tax).

 

The property I had reposessed some years ago was sold about 8 months later, and my name was still on the Land Registry, as I was able to prove that by the repossession terms I had no liability for the property and had no access to the property the council gave in.

 

Again it is another little nail in OUR coffins....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SG , had some spare time today and tried to find a definitive

answer to this but there is nothing concrete, seems it must

vary council to council and receivers.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, our properties have not been repossessed, they are only managed (laughable I know) on our behalf by the receivers and because of this we are still legally responsible for the council tax.

MX themselves have investigated this for us (bless'em) along with our solicitor and as the legal owners we are allowed the 6 months exemption, if the property is empty, but after that the bill does come due to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the receivers made any efforts to mitigate the costs by letting the

properties so revenue is incoming, if not there is I believe some wrong doing here,

I am not an expert in any way in this area, but I think the realisation of income

and assets to discharge the bankruptcy in good faith.

 

I hope someone with more expertise than I will be able to help more.

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a repossession order is granted to the mortgage company, the owner is not liable for council tax once he has moved out in compliance with the order.

 

But if an LPA Receiver is appointed, no repossession order is made. The owner therefore remains liable for the council tax.

 

An owner is allowed 6 months exemption if a property is unoccupied; but after that the council tax is payable by him.

 

Where a property is let to tenants by the LPA Receiver, the tenants - as occupier - will be liable for the tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the LPA has taken over management of the property Ed, might there be an argument that they should ensure that all the landlords bills are dealt with - including council tax if applicable?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I just found the same answer it a priority debt and should be administered

by the receiver or trustee.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the LPA has taken over management of the property Ed, might there be an argument that they should ensure that all the landlords bills are dealt with - including council tax if applicable?

 

 

This presumably has a bearing on the central theme of this thread, which is - at its simplest - the fact that we don't know what the powers and duties of an LPA Receiver are.

 

Certainly, the Receiver is appointed to manage the property.

 

But it is too sweeping to say that the Receiver owes a duty to the freehold owner. It seems to be the case that the Receiver is acting solely in the interests of the mortgage lender, and thus appears to have no duty to the borrower/owner.

 

It is also too sweeping to say that the Receiver owes a duty to pay council tax, merely by reason of it being an outgoing. If the property is let to tenants by the Receiver, for example, the council tax liability appears to fall on the shorthold tenant, as occupier.

 

And whatever else the Receiver is, he never becomes an occupier.

 

So there does not appear to be an absolute liability, but at best only a conditional one, and the Receiver doesn't meet the conditions, on the face of it: he never becomes either the owner or the occupier.

 

So it simply isn't clear that the Receiver has any liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, thus if the bankrupt has no funds to

pay the tax their situation can be made worse with

a liability order and consequent costs.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, thus if the bankrupt has no funds to pay the tax their situation can be made worse with a liability order and consequent costs.

 

 

Well, that's not quite what I meant by 'receiver'.

 

A receiver can be appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), simply to receive rent income on behalf of a mortgage lender, as a means of by-passing the freehold owner - to whom the tenants would otherwise be paying the rent.

 

This is not the same as a receiver in bankruptcy. An LPA receiver can be appointed under a mortgage to manage a residential property if the mortgage lender sees fit, even though the property owner is not insolvent/bankrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that most of us on this site (ourselves included) have not been made bankrupt, the lender has employed the services of LPA receivers to 'manage' the properties on our behalf, we are in law still the legal owners with all the responsibility that goes with ownership including resposibility to pay council tax if property is vacant.

We are entitled to a 6 month exemption period but seeing that some of our properties have now been under the control of the receiver and empty of tenants for nearly 3 years, the council have been chasing us and have obtained CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax.

And yes, I have had meetings with the council and have been to the court hearings only to be told that 'the law is the law and we are legally required to pay the bills'.

What sticks most in my throat regarding the conduct of the receivers and MX is that we have written evidence that there is colusion between the receiver and the lender.

The receiver has employed companies from Scotland to do work on our properties in the South of England, the costs added for travel arrangements were huge.

We have been billed for replacing guttering on a bay window that has never had guttering and doesn't need guttering.

We have been billed £600 for a new washer/dryer but a second hand appliance was installed instead, there are many other examples of 'creative' accounting.

We know of investors coming in to buy our properties and 'bunging' the estate agents to make sure they can be bought for the right price.

Some of the initial paperwork issued by the receivers was dated before the lender instructed them and some of it even has the wrong names on. We sought the advice of a public access barrister regarding this but was told that it didn't really matter as the receiver could say it was just a mistake and then rectify the paperwork later.

I can understand the councils trying to get money out of us as it is legally our responsibility but it does seem a tad unfair that the receivers and the companies they employ can get away with this kind of behaviour.

Maybe they are all owned by 'News International'

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an awful story,you have my sympathy.

There must be a regulatory body that you can

complain to, the LPA appear to be milking your situation

by fraud all the work and travel expenses + the CT.

 

Some one must be responsible.

 

I'll bump the thread to see if anyone has ideas on this.

 

BUMP

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mungos Mum for clarifying regarding the council tax. That's what I thought.

 

Ed999, I thought that somebody on this thread would be better positioned to have the answer as most of us are in the hands of the LPA's.

 

Back to the subject of the LPA's - any news from anybody?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
We are entitled to a 6 month exemption period but seeing that some of our properties have now been under the control of the receiver and empty of tenants for nearly 3 years, the council have been chasing us and have obtained CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, an LPA Receiver is in law potentially liable to the owner in negligence.

 

It seems to me that a failure to let the property at all would potentially amount to negligence, even if that neglect continued for a far shorter duration than 3 years!

 

You ought to be investigating the possibility of suing in negligence.

 

I have explained what facts a Barrister would need from you, earlier in this thread; and you will need to collate far fewer facts than anyone else, if your property has never been let at all, since there will be no details of rent payments by the shorthold tenant.

 

 

Apologies if I have overlooked some detail of your circumstances: it was not possible for me to thoroughly review the previous 70 pages of this thread in the available time today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had the experience of LPA Receivers increasing my debt by instructing others to carry out work to my properties that didn't need doing. This includes such things as a new kitchen in one property and a new roof on another and many other examples. To try to get to grips with this as our debt increases everytime work is done, we did a Subject Access Request on the receiver. They supplied some documents but refused to release invoices and other financial details. I made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office and have heard today that they have upheld our complaint and have informed the receivers that they are in breach of the Data Protection Act and that as they are legally our agents and that as we are ultimately responsible for any expenditure they incurr when doing work on our properties, that they must provide us with the financial details that we have requested. They have forty days to release the information. I hope this might help others in the same situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keates, could you clarify one point.

 

Are you posting about LPA Receivers in general, or is your experience specifically with Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton?

 

It perhaps makes no difference. But a small victory over ME or WS would doubtless boost morale on the thread. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My LPA Recievers are two individuals who are employed by Michael Parkes Surveyors, a small local firm but I am confident that the decision made by the Commissioners Office is a decision on principal and would be applied to any LPA receiver. The actual wording of the Commissioners decision reads, The ICO considers that the witheld information is likely to relate to you as the receivers are legally acting on your beahlf as your 'agents' and that the invoices appear to detail items that you are personally, financially and legally responsible for'.

Since receiving the Commisioners decision this week, I have telephoned his office and had it confirmed that the decision relates to ALL financial details that the receiver holds on my properties eg rents collected and all costs that are being added to my accounts.

 

I hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hence the reason i stated many months ago Photographic/Video Evidence is what you need the minit they are appointed , you then have recourse for damges and deliberate and possible fraudulent and unlawful acts ,

well done keates , isnt it strange i asked the ICo last year about this and they could not make a decision , i geuss it is because of the new structure of the FSA and also all our persistent badgering for some clarity about the LPAs

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi patrickq1, Did I meet you at the meeting in London in March with George Eustice MP? On the subject of the ICO's decision. It took the adjudicator a long time to make his decision as he had to refer it to the legal team. I guess I was fortunate to have some one who was determined to come up with a definitive decision. I have forwarded the ICO letter to George Eustice MP and he thanked me and said the ICO ruling was very interesting and would help his case. Proof that all we can do is keep on going until we crack it. We are hoping to have a decision very soon on the complaint we made to the Financial Ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you have a copy of the ruling that you have had then also send a copy to the FO this will ensure that they will more favour on its strengh and determination that the decision made is not a light statement it is an authoritive decision and that is in your favour and intrests, it also strenghens the legal arguement that this document and decision has merit in your rights to justice ,so like ED says you have enough condensed information and proof upto and including witness's that you will put forward...so start your clock and speed up your determinationin going for broke as the more time they have the more they can use your bad financial situation and the more you will be discredited as a bad debtor ? that is one of their aims you got to pull out all the stops in finding a good barristor

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4021 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...