Jump to content


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


chillinlong
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3230 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

best answers would be ask PT if he has anyknowledge,he will be able to discuss legal stuff on a better footing....all i have done is to give you some case law and history of just how desperate B&B were and just how far the goverment went in protecting your rights,effectively B&B were given a goverment guarentee to protect mrtgages and hived it off ,the goverment have not acted with good intentions and had purpoted to have sent in monitors via the fsa ..so there must be records to what has happened here after all this involves 3 million buy to let prperties /

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Patrick,

 

Thanks again for all your input though it has been somewhat interestring and motivating and inspiring! Plenty of new angles for me to bring with to the barrsiter.

 

who is PT btw?

 

Thakns

Link to post
Share on other sites

pt2537

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Published: 10:15PM BST 28 Sep 2008

Bradford & Bingley

 

 

Credit Suisse put it best. “Bradford & Bingley’s biggest issue is asset quality. We doubt any major bank will want exposure to a £40bn mortgage portfolio with arrears almost double the industry average, and where over 40pc of loans will be in negative equity if house prices fall 30pc peak-to-trough, on our estimates,” analyst Jonathan Pierce noted as the bank’s shares crashed at the back end of last week.

What no private sector bank could stomach, the taxpayer is now shouldering – a £41bn book of “specialist” mortgages that have never before been tested in a recession and £11bn of other assets. The total £52bn balance sheet will be lashed together with Northern Rock’s outstanding £84bn of assets, giving the taxpayer a £136bn exposure to Britain’s tumbling housing market.

It is little coincidence that the two banks to be bailed out by the taxpayer were considered outriders in the mortgage industry.

B&B was a pioneer of buy-to-let mortgages, spotting an opening in the market to lend to private landlords almost a decade ago.

The business boomed on the back of soaring house prices, now accounting for 11pc of the whole mortgage markets with £135bn of outstanding loans, but has never fully shaken off concerns about its economic model – largely because it has not been tested in a recession.

The fear is that landlords have loaded up with debt to take advantage of the rising prices and, because mortgage rates are soaring, will now have to unravel their positions urgently.

Rents are rising but as owners see their pension funds go up in smoke, they may look to shift their money to other asset classes.

In addition, contracts with B&B and the market’s other leader, HBOS, require the borrower to top up their initial deposits as house prices fall.

Alex Potter, banks analyst at Collins Stewart, said: “My concern is that in a downturn, buy-to-let doesn’t have the backing of a family wanting to stay in the house they live in. It seems super-cyclical.”

B&B’s other expertise, self-cert, is even more “specialist”.

Because the borrower does not need to provide proof of salary, the mortgages have been lampooned as “liars’ loans”.

To date, the concerns seem well-founded. The proportion of lenders three months or more behind on their mortgage payments was 2.87pc in June – double the industry average.

Of particular concern has been an acquired book of £8bn of mortgages that B&B bought from other lenders, on which the problem loan levels have hit a dangerously high 5.72pc.

Mr Potter said: “This was an incredibly bull-market contract and it’s clearly working against them now.”

The bank’s average loan-to-value ratio on its mortgage book is 60pc and creeping up as house prices tumble.

As the bad debts escalate, Credit Suisse expects B&B to post losses of £71m this year, £139m next year and £57m in 2010.

On top of which, it has £826m of impaired sub-prime related assets. Balanced against that is B&B’s £1.14bn of shareholder equity – the funds available to absorb losses before the taxpayer has to cough up.

It is unlikely to last long. Northern Rock ate its way through £1.4bn of shareholder equity in just one year.

To preserve Northern Rock’s credit rating, the Government has since switched £3bn of its loan into equity – putting taxpayers at greater risk. B&B has already been downgraded to just one notch above “junk” status and put on watch for a further possible downgrade due to the risks in the mortgage book.

Grappling with B&B may be even more difficult than Northern Rock.

Under Northern Rock chairman Ron Sandler’s plans, the mortgage book would be halved in size by encouraging borrowers to remortgage elsewhere.

With buy-to-let and self-cert, there are no other lenders. The market has almost entirely shut down, with dozens of lenders withdrawing since the financial crisis struck. Borrowers are faced with either switching onto the lender’s (much higher) standard variable rate or accepting punitively expensive terms.

Given the difficulty in running down the book, the Government will be left with the awkward quandary of either encouraging customers to sell their properties by increasing rates to an untenable level, or effectively having the taxpayer subsidise landlords’ pension plans. Repossession levels among B&B’s one million mortgages will almost certainly soar.

By stepping in before B&B hit “junk” status, the Government has preserved about £10bn of funding by shoring up its Aire Valley securitisation vehicle. Even so, after selling the bank’s £22bn of deposits, the Government will have to provide £40bn of funding.

Given the level of concern, it’s little wonder that – when asked on Saturday if they could do their bit for “national service” and buy B&B – HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland told the Government “thanks, but no thanks”.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Very interesting article again!

 

You have got a knack of coming up with some good stuff, but the next step is the nittry gritty that we need to take action now before it is too late ie a barristers on the case I thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, thanks for your continueous advice and support...

 

Yes, Templetons were formally called Stephenson Alexander (which was on their letterheads). I only discovered this when i called them. David Burgess' mobile number might be really handly.

 

Is there a template for SARs? If so, could someone please guide me on where to look. Many Thanks.

 

Will keep you guys updated on any progress that i make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GBGM

 

To find template for SAR;

go to

 

1, main heading for consumer forum

2, consumer forums libraries

3, bank charges template letters

4, data protection is article 4

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to put this on here but I'm sure a site moderator will remove it if I've broken the rules, mobile number for director, David Burgess at Templetons LPA is EDIT

 

Templetons have taken over the running of Stephenson Alexander.

 

Good luck with your SAR's, don't expect initially to receive very much info though, they obstruct all the way down the line, it almost seems as though they cannot let you have your data as they have something to hide.....now I wonder what that could be??? colluding with the lender?, lack of 'due dilegence'? the list goes on & on.

 

They may well ask you what it is you are looking for, that is immaterial as they have to provide all data relating to you or that leads to you, ie; account numbers, property addresses etc. What may be of interest is what they don't send.

 

Come back if we can be of any further help

 

Best wishes

 

Mungos mum x

Edited by caro
Removing personal number
Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 44:-

 

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) by signaturelink3.gif in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4) A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5) In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interestlink3.gif in property.

(6) Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7) References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(:cool: This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

Extract from Lawdit

 

Assigning A Debt Or Benefit Of Contract? - Information Technology Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

 

 

 

Assigning A Debt Or Benefit Of Contract?

 

6 December 2005

 

Assigning A Debt Or Benefit Of Contract?

It is important to first provide the debtor with a notice of the assignment!

Other points and issues that should be borne in mind:

· In principle, the benefit of a contract can be legally assigned without consent, provided there is no express prohibition on assignment or, for example, a requirement that consent is obtained.

· Where there is no restriction on assignment, the usual way of assigning the benefit of contractual rights is by statutory assignment. The assignment must be in writing, signed by the assignor, absolute (not purporting to be by way of charge only) and notice in writing must be given to the other contracting party (section 136, Law of Property Act 1925).

· If a contract is not effectively assigned under statute, it may still be assigned under common law by an equitable assignment. An equitable assignment may exist where the requirements for a statutory assignment are not satisfied. The main practical consequence of an equitable assignment is that the assignee cannot bring an action in its own name against the third party, but must fall back on the rules governing equitable assignments and join the assignor as a party to the action.

It is, in any event, desirable for notice of an assignment to be given to the third party because the third party will otherwise be entitled to continue to make payments to the assignor. Notice will give the assignee priority over any other assignee that has failed to give notice, provided there is no knowledge of such prior assignment.

· The burden of a contract cannot be assigned. It is therefore necessary to novate, rather than assign, certain contracts. Novation is, in effect, the rescission of one contract and the substitution of a new contract in which the same acts are to be performed but by different parties.

· On the sale of a business, the asset purchase agreement may specifically assign the benefit of the seller's contracts to the purchaser. Assuming that there is no restriction on assignment, this amounts to a statutory assignment, provided that notice is also given to the other contracting party. If assignment is not possible, or only possible with consent, the asset purchase agreement may provide that such contracts are held on trust pending the obtaining of formal consent to assign or novate.

Trade debts often remain with the seller on the sale of a business because giving written notice of the assignment of the debt to each debtor can, depending on the number of debtors, be time consuming and expensive. Where the trade debts remain with the seller, the seller may continue to collect the debts, or else the buyer may collect the debts as agent for the seller.

As the burden of a contract may not be assigned, liability for breach of contract stays with the seller, who will therefore seek an indemnity from the buyer in relation to any breach occurring after completion.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

posted 2 times

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

.

 

ConsumerWiki - DCA: Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage

 

From Consumer Wiki

 

 

Jump to: navigation, search

With thanks to Surfaceagentx20

In the time I have been a member of the site I have seeen a number of examples where a member is being forced along with a legal case in a situation where the creditor is unwilling from the outset to provide a legible copy of the agreement sued upon.

Sometimes they produce fuzzy copies. Sometimes they produce only part of the agreement, not all of it. Sometimes they don't produce it all and claim that owing to the decision in Rankine, they can proceed with the case regardless of whether they can bring the agreement into court.

The ability of the Defendant to know how best to deal with the claim they are required to meet is impaired where a legible copy of the entire agreement is unavailable from the outset. For example, they will not know whether to plead that the agreement is unenforceable. Pleading that it is unenforceable without actually having an opinion on whether it is or is not enforcerable could be dangerous. Pleading that it is unenforceable will place the onus of proving that fact upon the debtor. That may place an insurmountable obstacle in circumstances where later on in the case, something less than full disclosure of the agreement occurs, or where the creditor serves witness statements which are designed to present to the court a re-construction or version interpretation of the agreement.

I have seen a number of situations where the Defendant has been encouraged to deliver what is termed a CPR Request or CPR Part 18 request. Versions of the request I have seen often demand disclosure of documentary material akin to the kind of information sought in a Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). Rarely do they genuinely seek Further Information by way of clarification of an issue raised in the case and which could not be dealt with during standard disclosure. As such, these requests have the habit of being refused as not being reasonable and proportionate. In cases where the sum involved is not more than £5,000.00, the Claimant answers by reference to CPR 27.2(f), saying that Part 18 does not apply.

Besides wishing to take an opinion on the agreeent, the Defendant will want to know whether to plead the default notice was ineffective, whether the Claimant's claim to have a right to sue as assignee of the debt is valid. If the agreement is unenforceable, the default notice is defective or the assigment is invalid, any one of these features will operate as a complete defence to the alleged liability.

In my view the proper thing for the debtor to do in those circumstances is to strike as quickly as possible; to go on the offensive and wrestle control of the case away from the Claimant by asserting rights which the Claimant must comply with before the Defendant becomes obliged to elect how to plead the Defence.

Such a right is found in CPR 31.14 and is concerned with the disclosure of documents mentioned in pleadings, the very place where the Claimant will refer to the agreement relied upon in even the most sparingly particularised claim.

I have therefore drawn up a draft of such a letter which I would recommend delivering to Claimants in a proper case so soon as possible after receipt of the Claim Form. It looks like this:

Dear Sir,

Re:
(Claimant's name)
v
(Your name)
Case No:

CPR 31.14 Request

On
(date)
I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the
(Name)
County Court.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

[Prior to the issue of proceedings I had delivered a request for the production of the agreement mentioned in the Claim Form and on which you rely. That request was ignored]
[delete if no such request was delivered]

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of
[each of the following / the]
document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

1 The agreement.
You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.

2 The assignment*

3 The default notice*

4 The termination notice*

5 [any other documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim]*

* delete if not mentioned in the Particulars of claim.

[Although your claim is for a sum which is not more than £5,000.00 and will in all likelihood be allocated to the small claims track for determination upon my delivering a defence, at this moment in time I have not delivered my defence and the case has not been allocated to a track. In consequence the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 duties by claiming otherwise]#

# delete if claim for a sum exceeding £5,000.00

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing. You must tell me before the time for compliance with this request has expired. In telling me you require more time you must tell me what steps you have taken and propose to take in order to comply with this request and also state a date by when you will comply with this request. In addition your statement must be accompanied with a statement that you agree to an extension of the time for me to file my defence. Your extension of time must be not less than 14 days from the date when you say you will have complied with my request and you must state the new date for filing my defence.

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request you must tell me in writing.

Please note that if you should fail to comply with this request, fail to request more time or fail to agree to an extension of time for the filing of my defence, I will make an application to the court for an order that the proceedings be struck out or stayed for non-compliance and a summary costs order.

I do hope this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

If a contract is not effectively assigned under statute, it may still be assigned under common law by an equitable assignment. An equitable assignment may exist where the requirements for a statutory assignment are not satisfied. The main practical consequence of an equitable assignment is that the assignee cannot bring an action in its own name against the third party, but must fall back on the rules governing equitable assignments and join the assignor as a party to the action.

by asserting rights which the Claimant must comply with before the Defendant becomes obliged to elect how to plead the Defence.

Such a right is found in CPR 31.14 and is concerned with the disclosure of documents mentioned in pleadings, the very place where the Claimant will refer to the agreement relied upon in even the most sparingly particularised claim.

I have therefore drawn up a draft of such a letter which I would recommend delivering to Claimants in a proper case so soon as possible after receipt of the Claim Form

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Morning All - I dip in and out of this thread and started one a while back about WS as I have an ongoing battle with them.

 

I have resorted to letting one of the property ourselves and send rent to MEX as WS can't be relied upon. They have chased me a couple of times for AST and insisted rent is paid directly to them, but have gone quiet and as MEX seem happy I will wait to see what happens.

 

Would like to hear how Blackpool Landlady got on in her meeting as I do worry that properties get sold without anyone being advised and I have one that is possibly at risk - has anyone heard from her since the meet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bullhunter,

 

It would be good to hear how Blackpool lady gone on.

 

Patrick, If you are still out there I am still trying to get my head around the info posted and am working on it.

 

Meanwhile, there is an article that has been released today about B & B and Nortern Rock that sort of shows that they are no looking to keep long term rather than totally winding down the portfolio which was their intention when problems first started.

 

Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley 'bad banks' to be tied up | Mail Online

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Just thought i'd update you with my situation. Two of my properties have been empty for over 6 months, as Templeton LPA's are incappable of re-letting them and been more them happy to see my arrears increase so they can tell MEX the best scenario would be to dispose of them.

 

GUESS WHAT, it took me less then 72 hours to re-let, with rental income surplus of mortgage payments. The down side was that the property was trashed, otherwise the new tenants were willing to move in on the spot. I have spent the whole weekend cleaning the place and fixing water leaks and subsequent damage. No doubt the tenants will find a few more problems.

 

I can guarentee that IMPOTENT Templeton LPA's will want to cease controll of the rent and scare the tenant off asap. I have spent my money fixing the mess they created.

 

Does anyone know if i can charge Templetons for the damages and the consequent work that needed to be done? And is there any way i can set up a standing order between the tenant and MEX without alarming the tenant?

 

As always all comments and advice are much appreciated.

Edited by good boy gone mad
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3230 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.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...