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

[patrickq1]

yes preferably get it done before court action this shows you have tried to obtain information and also shows you have been in contact ,so they will likely be ordered by a court to comply with the order and if they even thought of court action without complying with an order then they would be in contempt of CPR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

[chillinlong]

OK and shall I send one to WS and MX?

 

Thakns again

[patrickq1]

there is a precedent now been set any company in receivership must automaticly be stopped and revert back to the directors ..will find the case in question, so anyone who has been under the receiver for more than 1 year can now possibly have cause for action against both receiver and the mortgage Co..

patrickq1

yes chilli to both

you can also ask the courts permission for mediation ,

In July of this year Lord Justice Mummery in the Court of Appeal endorsed the use of mediation as a dispute resolution tool in Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873. The case concerned a boundary dispute arising out of contested ownership of a stream. Mediation had tentatively been suggested in the course of the dispute, but had not been undertaken by the parties. The case was decided at first instance in the defendant's favour and the judgment was upheld on appeal. Mummery LJ considered it "a pity" that notwithstanding the fact that the dispute had progressed to litigation, mediation had not been attempted. He described mediation as a "valuable service", noting that "in many boundary disputes both sides ultimately lose something that might have been secured in a compromise". Summing up, Mummery LJ concluded that "the unfortunate consequences of a case like this are that, in the absence of any compromise, someone wins, someone loses, it always costs a lot of money and usually generates a lot of ill-feeling that does not end with the litigation. None of those things are good for neighbours." The case illustrates the continued endorsement of ADR by the courts.

The High Court to get tough on late extension application!!

 

 

Paragraph 76(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that administrations now come to an end automatically after the period of one year from the date of commencement. In such circumstances an administrator’s appointment automatically ceases which can result in control of the Company and its assets reverting to its Directors.

The effect of an administration coming to an abrupt end in this way has a number of practical implications on practitioners; not least criticism from creditors but also a risk of being liable for trespass or interference with goods if they remain in possession or control of the Company’s assets following their appointment suddenly ending.

There are also a number of administrative obligations placed upon practitioners in these circumstances, these include sending the appropriate notice and a final progress report to every creditor and other person that received a copy of the original proposals, sending a copy to the Registrar of Companies and filing the same with the court. Failure to comply with these obligations can result in personal liability for default fines.

If an administrator’s appointment comes to an end suddenly there is also likely to be a need for them to incur the cost of having to make an application to the court for their release from liability under paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.

In view of the above it is unlikely that in practice an administration will come to an end automatically under Paragraph 76(1) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Instead administrators are likely to look at taking steps to have the administration and their appointment extended.

Extending the Administration

In circumstances where the administration cannot, for whatever reason, be brought to an end before the first anniversary of its commencement Paragraph 76(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 enables it to be extended with either an order of the court or the consent of creditors. Obtaining the consent of creditors can have its complications. Firstly, an extension by consent is limited to six months. There is also the cost and delay of obtaining it which must be from the requisite majority and class of creditors (Paragraph 78(1) and (2) Sch B1 IA 86) and either be given in writing or by a resolution at a creditors meeting (Paragraphs 78(3)(a) and (b) Sch B1 IA 86).

Whilst many practitioners have tried to avoid the cost and delay mentioned above, by seeking to obtain a blanket resolution as part of their proposals under paragraph 49 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 allowing them at their discretion to extend the administration by 6 months, doubt has been cast by the Insolvency Service as to whether or not this is permissible (see Dear IP, Issue No 37 Oct 08). Accordingly the more common approach is for an application to be made to the court.

Applications to Court; Delay at your peril!!!

It was initially standard practice for applications to extend administrations to be made without notice and to be dealt with on the papers without a formal hearing. Whilst initially the courts seemed happy to deal with such applications in this way, with more and more applications being made at the last minute the High Court announced earlier this year that in future all extension applications would be listed for a hearing rather than dealt with on the papers. The impact of this is the additional cost of needing representation at court together with a need to make the application in good time so that it can be dealt with before the expiry of the administration under paragraph 76(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.

It would however appear that this attempt by the High Court to encourage practitioners to avoid making extension applications at the last minute has failed. It has been brought to our attention that Chief Bankruptcy Registrar Stephen Baister is still unhappy with the number of last minute applications being made. We understand he has issued a direction to the High Court Registrars dealing with such applications that unless the application has been made at least four weeks before the expiry of the administration it will be necessary for the relevant Insolvency Practitioners to attend the hearing in person to give an explanation to the court for the delay with the added penalty that the costs of such attendance be borne by them personally rather than paid as an expense of the Administration. In order to avoid such costs, and the potentially daunting prospect of having to appear before the court in person, practitioners are encouraged to undertake regular reviews of their administration cases with a view to considering as early as possible whether there will be a need for the same to be extended and more importantly whether such extension will need to be obtained from the court

[patrickq1]

also have you seen this might be worth a complaint and see what springs from this

New BBC1 series of Don’t Get Done, Get Dom

 

Consumer champion Dominic Littlewood is back for another series of the BBC show Don't Get Done Get Dom.

Have you been treated unfairly by a company or organisation? Maybe you’ve tried complaining, but feel like you’re getting nowhere – or perhaps you don’t know where to begin?

Dom wants to help you.

Email me with details to [email protected]

 

or call - 0207 598 7390

[chillinlong]

Thanks again Patrick, I will get this actioned upon!

[tarquin999]

I'm going around in circles with Chelsea and their receiver Allsop.

 

My formal complaints to Chelsea about their receiver's service has simply resulted in Chelsea saying that they are happy with their selection of Allsop as the receiver, and that Allsop's conduct has nothing to do with them, as Allsop are acting for me, not for Chelsea!

 

Is this correct? Is Chelsea able to wipe their hands of any wrongdoing by the receiver they selected and assigned? Do I now need to pursue Allsop directly? Won't I continue going around in circles?

 

Very frustrating!

[diddled]

LPA Receivers are deemed in a strict legal sense the mortgagors agents, thats one of the reasons why there actions/inactions are outside of FOS jurisdiction.

You could lodge a formal complaint with RICS about Allsops conduct on the grounds that they acted in bad faith, breached trust/fiduciary duty, etc.

[diddled]

The Receiver has duties to the appointing lender and has

a duty to the borrower to act in good faith. This means that

neither the lender nor the Receiver is exposed personally to

liabilities relating to the property, unless the Receiver acts

negligently or in bad faith.

[patrickq1]

You could lodge a formal complaint with RICS about Allsops conduct on the grounds that they acted in bad faith, breached trust/fiduciary duty, etc.

i think this would be a pointless exercise but may well be worth a try, if you have confirmation then you have the option of , formally beginning a action against Allsops for negligence seeing as they are "quote" and that Allsop's conduct has nothing to do with them, as Allsop are acting for me, not for Chelsea "Working for You," so you are dissatisfied with their actions and breach of trust plays a major part as well as fiduciary duty so court action in front of a judge who can and more likely will deliberate in your favor considering the losses you are incurring and also a reclaim of all these losses this will be against Chelsea who were and are aware of the misdemeanors of allsops and have made absolutely no attempt to put things right ..this is also a case for the FSA they have more Powers to act the problem here is you are not getting past the first teir of the management process with the FSA so you need to now bring it to the attention of a senior figure with the FSA i will write to them as promises were made to look into this matter and seems it has not flowed down to the ground and also their is a investigation that has started so i will ask what is going on , i know a review is not always the best thing for you at the moment so if you can get a Minister to also make formal inquiries in the dealings between Alsop and Chelsea

patrickq1

[tarquin999]

Thanks guys. I've written to both... Allsop to tell them that I don't accept the way they're working and will sue for losses and damages; Chelsea to tell them that they will suffer the fallout if they don't rein in Allsop.

 

Let's hope that one of them sees sense and calls an end to the matter. I really don't want to have to take them to court - but will do if I'm left with no alternative.

 

Just learned that Allsop has now succeeded in selling all my properties (subject to completion) - resulting in around £100k unnecessary shortfall on my mortgage settlements (compared to the private buyer I had lined up). Allsop still maintains that they are doing this "in my best interests, due to a falling property market". They clearly do not know what they are talking about!

[chillinlong]

I am sorry to hear that Tarquin, they are making life so difficult.

 

Unfortunately the LPA is "so called"acting as our agent and not the mortgage agent, they have deflected any legal problems. Only route is building damages and duty of care by negligence etc. Or even obstructing their jobs and try and force them off but they have sold it so quickly I have not come accross a reciever that has dealt this quickly. To think I was about to do severa mortgages with Chelsea just when the recession started but they pulled out when times got worse.

[diddled]

Tarquin

Im confident you have done the right thing by challenging in writing the lenders and the receivers actions.

I dont really expect them to resolve this, however if you intend to litigate a court wouldnt look favourably on you if you hadn't given the perpetrators the opportunity to resolve it before commencing court action.

[tarquin999]

Thanks, chillinlong and diddled.

 

I've also "told" Allsop that, because I no longer recognise their POA, I shall sell the property myself to my private buyer, and commence Civil Proceedings if they obstruct me.

 

I have a feeling, though, that Allsop may legally have the right to prevent me from selling? Furthermore, I shall need to gain Chelsea's permission to discharge their Secured Charge from the property. Also, doubtless, even if I am succesful in selling, Allsop will sue me for their "fees"?

[patrickq1]

i do not foresee Alsop getting involved in a protracted legal battle when it can be shown that they were negligent and had not provided a duty of care ,you had tried to liaise with them you had asked for some sort of negations you have asked for mediation you have in fact exhausted all avenues of reasonableness and they could only obfuscate and ignore all requests,this goes for both Chelsea and Alsop's ,i think in a proper airing in court a judge would only see sense and question their motives as to why they were it seems creating a excessive loss to you without even considering genuine offers that you had supplied them with , i would also when the time comes then enter a counter claim for damages and losses against both parties as they were both involved,

ps... don't forget all email s now sent between both Alsops and Chelsea concerning you must now be supplied in any court actions, as from this month it is now a requirement to supply all data,

if you have already sent the CPR then they will be seen as being obstructive in supplying you with all data...they are digging a big whole so don't worry go ahead with the Sale and when it comes to the counterclaim by Alsop's they will have to have a damned good reason for trying to extort any more monies from you

and Chelsea would also have to answer to employing a company who were negligent and any losses that the company who were employed by Chelsea will have to show reasonable cause and also show what checks they had been making on the other company..

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

will be on later to reply to some PMs been away

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Civil Procedure Rules

 

• What's New?
  
• Rules & Practice Directions
  
• Schedule 1 - RSC
  
• Schedule 2 - CCR
  
• Pre-Action Protocols
  
• Glossary
  
• Index
  
• Forms
  
• Court Guides
  
• Updates & Zips
  
• Statutory Instruments
  
• Consultation
  
• Contact
  

Search area: Search

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT

 

Contents of this Practice Direction Title Number SECTION I – INTRODUCTION 1. Aims 2. Scope 3. Definitions SECTION II – THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS 4. Compliance 5. Commencement of pre-action protocols SECTION III – THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES IN CASES NOT SUBJECT TO A PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL 6. Overview of Principles 7. Exchanging Information before starting proceedings 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution SECTION IV – REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY IN ALL CASES 9. Specific Provisions Disclosure Para. 9.2 Information about funding arrangements Para. 9.3 Experts Para. 9.4 Limitation Periods Para. 9.5 Notifying the court Para. 9.7 Transitional Provision Para. 9.8 ANNEX A ANNEX B ANNEX C

SECTION I – INTRODUCTION

 

1. Aims

 

1.1

 

The aims of this Practice Direction are to –

(1) enable parties to settle the issue between them without the need to start proceedings (that is, a court claim); and

 

(2) support the efficient management by the court and the parties of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

 

 

1.2

 

These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –

(1) exchange information about the issue, and

 

(2) consider using a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’).

 

 

 

 

2. Scope

 

2.1

 

This Practice Direction describes the conduct the court will normally expect of the prospective parties prior to the start of proceedings.

 

2.2

 

There are some types of application where the principles in this Practice Direction clearly cannot or should not apply. These include, but are not limited to, for example –

(1) applications for an order where the parties have agreed between them the terms of the court order to be sought (‘consent orders’);

 

(2) applications for an order where there is no other party for the applicant to engage with;

 

(3) most applications for directions by a trustee or other fiduciary;

 

(4) applications where telling the other potential party in advance would defeat the purpose of the application (for example, an application for an order to freeze assets).

 

 

2.3

 

Section II deals with the approach of the court in exercising its powers in relation to pre-action conduct. Subject to paragraph 2.2, it applies in relation to all types of proceedings including those governed by the pre-action protocols that have been approved by the Head of Civil Justice and which are listed in paragraph 5.2 of this Practice Direction.

 

2.4

 

Section III deals with principles governing the conduct of the parties in cases which are not subject to a pre-action protocol.

 

2.5

 

Section III of this Practice Direction is supplemented by two annexes aimed at different types of claimant.

(1) Annex A sets out detailed guidance on a pre-action procedure that is likely to satisfy the court in most circumstances where no pre-action protocol or other formal pre-action procedure applies. It is intended as a guide for parties, particularly those without legal representation, in straightforward claims that are likely to be disputed. It is not intended to apply to debt claims where it is not disputed that the money is owed and where the claimant follows a statutory or other formal pre-action procedure.

 

(2) Annex B sets out some specific requirements that apply where the claimant is a business and the defendant is an individual. The requirements may be complied with at any time between the claimant first intimating the possibility of court proceedings and the claimant’s letter before claim.

 

 

2.6

 

Section IV contains requirements that apply to all cases including those subject to the pre-action protocols (unless a relevant pre-action protocol contains a different provision). It is supplemented by Annex C, which sets out guidance on instructing experts.

 

 

 

3. Definitions

 

3.1

 

In this Practice Direction together with the Annexes –

(1) ‘proceedings’ means any proceedings started under Part 7 or Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (‘CPR’);

 

(2) ‘claimant’ and ‘defendant’ refer to the respective parties to potential proceedings;

 

(3) ‘ADR’ means alternative dispute resolution, and is the collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process; (see paragraph 8.2 for further information); and

 

(4) ‘compliance’ means acting in accordance with, as applicable, the principles set out in Section III of this Practice Direction, the requirements in Section IV and a relevant pre-action protocol. The words ‘comply’ and ‘complied’ should be construed accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION II – THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS

 

4. Compliance

 

4.1

 

The CPR enable the court to take into account the extent of the parties’ compliance with this Practice Direction or a relevant pre-action protocol (see paragraph 5.2) when giving directions for the management of claims (see CPR rules 3.1(4) and (5) and 3.9(1)(e)) and when making orders about who should pay costs (see CPR rule 44.3(5)(a)).

 

4.2

 

The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation.

 

Assessment of compliance

 

4.3

 

When considering compliance the court will –

(1) be concerned about whether the parties have complied in substance with the relevant principles and requirements and is not likely to be concerned with minor or technical shortcomings;

 

(2) consider the proportionality of the steps taken compared to the size and importance of the matter;

 

(3) take account of the urgency of the matter. Where a matter is urgent (for example, an application for an injunction) the court will expect the parties to comply only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (Paragraph 9.5 and 9.6 of this Practice Direction concern urgency caused by limitation periods.)

 

 

 

Examples of non-compliance

 

4.4

 

The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –

(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;

 

(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;

 

(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or

 

(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.

 

 

 

Sanctions for non-compliance

 

4.5

 

The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.

 

4.6

 

If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include –

(1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;

 

(2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);

 

(3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.4(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);

 

(4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;

 

(5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

 

 

 

 

 

5. Commencement of pre-action protocols

 

5.1

 

When considering compliance, the court will take account of a relevant pre-action protocol if the proceedings were started after the relevant pre-action protocol came into force.

[patrickq1]

the recent case of Tom Hoskins Plc v EMW Law the court clarified that it is still appropriate to apply loss of chance principles, even when the claimant can produce some evidence at trial to suggest how a third party would have acted. The facts

Tom Hoskins Plc (the claimant) was a company that ran a brewery and a chain of pubs. It had found itself in financial difficulties and decided to sell off its properties. The claimant retained EMW Law (EMW) to act for it in the sale of the last of its remaining five pubs, four of which were owned leasehold, to Inn Spirit Ltd (ISL).

At trial Floyd J found that EMW had breached its duty of care to the claimant in the way it had handled the sale of the properties by:

 

• failing to obtain the landlord’s consent to assign in respect of the leasehold properties in time for the contract to be made unconditional; and
  
• allowing the contract to go forward in a form whereby the assignees could refuse to give directors’ guarantees or rent deposits.
  

In short, the consequence of all this was that the parties completed late, and under a second contract, but on terms relatively unfavourable to the claimant. The claimant submitted that if EMW had advised it initially about the requirement for guarantees, it would not have been put in this less advantageous position.

The claimant’s measure of loss arguments

The claimant claimed that loss of chance principles were not applicable in this case – they were able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that had EMW advised it correctly, it would have taken a tougher negotiating stance (with respect to the guarantees). This was on the basis there was some evidence from the relevant parties that the terms more favourable to the claimant would have been agreed under the initial contract. The claimant argued that where the third party gives evidence, the court does not need to speculate about what that third party would or might have done – it is appropriate to assess the third party’s conduct on the balance of probabilities (see Stone Heritage Developments Ltd v Davis Blank Furniss).

EMW’s measure of loss arguments

EMW submitted that the claimant’s loss still depended on the hypothetical actions of third parties, and the principles laid down in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons should be applied. EMW argued:

 

• this was a loss of chance case and as such the judge should consider, on the balance of probabilities, how the claimant would have acted, and
  
• then should consider whether the claimant had shown that there was a real and substantial (as opposed to a speculative) chance that the third party would have acted so as to confer the benefit in question – namely agreeing to the contract in terms favourable to TH; and
  
• damages awarded should then be discounted accordingly so as to take in the chances of success.
  

The decision

The judge rejected the claimant’s argument. The loss alleged was the loss of a contract with different terms at an earlier date, which depended on the extent to which ISL would have been prepared to enter into that contract and at that time. Not all the evidence relevant to ISL’s decision to complete an alternative contract had been called, merely some of it. It was therefore appropriate to apply loss of chance principles. It was held that the application of loss of chance principles should depend on the nature of the loss claimed rather than on the evidence which could be called.

Comment

 

• The court was keen to uphold loss of chance principles if not all of the third party evidence had been called (4 Eng Ltd v Harper applied).
  
• A defendant needs to think carefully about whether it is advantageous to plead that a claim should rightly be for a loss of a chance – even a low percentage can result in a large award, and it may be better to argue from a balance of probabilities point if the causation evidence is compelling.
  
• The above case law shows that the principles laid down in Allied Maples can be relied on if there are evidential gaps as to how a third party may have behaved.
  

[patrickq1]

any news

[tarquin999]

Hi patrickq1.

 

Regarding my Chelsea cases...

 

(1) Allsop has completed their sale of 3 of my properties (below my private buyer's offer price); I'm awaiting Chelsea's settlement statement, which will of course show that I owe a lot more than if my private buyer had been given a chance.

 

(2) Allsop failed to sell my other properties in September and have put them into this month's auction. They have said that my private buyer can buy them, but only under auction terms (i.e. 10% up-front on day one) - which my buyer cannot do (they are an FSA authorised sale and rent back provider, and have signed-off purchase procedures... with no deposits paid up-front).

 

(3) Allsop acknowledged my intention to sell the remaining properties under private treaty, but said that I'd be wasting my time because their auction this month would override any private treaty sale in progress (they have POA and will nullify the private sales).

 

I guess I'm just going to have to wait until I receive settlement statements from Chelsea; refuse to pay the settlement; wait until they petition for my bankruptcy; hope I can win my case re their negligence etc. Not a very comfortable position.

 

Chelsea have now responded to all my formal complaints - denying any wrong-doing and endorsing Allsop's credibility, which means I can now go to Financial Ombudsman if I wished. However, I have now lost my stamina and just want a simple life - even if it is as a bankrupt.

[patrickq1]

i see allsops are trying to show a point of reasonabless, but after the fact that both they and Chel have made a foul mess and are trying to find a way out to reduce any claim for damages,

i think you need to issue the Cpr with immediate effect m giving them 14 days only ,

then take it in front of a magistrate in order to suspend all actions, and in the meantime you will have chance to put forward evidence that they have acted in a ruthless and unfair manner and you wish to be given the opertunity to rtesolve matters and also the right to sell properties not for a loss like they want to do ,

and also enter a claim for future losses..

patrickq1

[caro]

I wish I could offer more helpful support tarquin. It makes me so mad when I read things like this where people are so defenceless against these predators that they are beaten into submission.

 

In one respect, by going bankrupt you would beat Chelsea as they wouldn't be able to get anything else from you.

 

As I'm typing it occurs to me that bankruptcy might be an option to explore sooner rather than later. At the moment some of these assets are still yours, and I'm wondering if a bankruptcy receiver might have any influence on how they're dealt with.

 

Might be worth considering.

[caro]

Sorry Patrick, I was typing as you posted. I wasn't looking to contradict you, but just a suggestion (albeit possibly a last resort) to consider.

[patrickq1]

o i agree with you only problem is ,it may not be possible Unless Allsops are Not Official Receivers as under licence by the Goverment then it is possible and they have then got the option to assume total control...

it might be worth delving into,

i have put in the thread a reference to a new track of thinking which is the one where the receiver has twelve months to make good on the receivership and end the receivership after twelve months, so in other words it may be possible to put the company into bankruptcy and have the official receiver take the reins , this way you can then have words with the official receiver about the carry on with allsops and i think in the intrest of justice they will surely see just how much you were being screwd and may then grant an injunction through the court to administer your account under supervision and the building society would have to agree to this as it would not be in their intrest to suffer any more losses, also the OR would then be asking Allsops for the VAT invoices and all paperwork concerning this ,, its a long shot but worth looking at

patrickq1

Statute

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Statute of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, written in Polish

 

 

 

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law and the regulations issued by government agencies.[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law". As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority (as opposed to secondary authority).

Ideally all Statutes must be in Harmony with the fundamental law of the land (Constitutional).

This word is used in contradistinction to the common law. Statutes acquire their force from the time of their passage unless otherwise provided. Statutes are of several kinds; namely, Public or private. Declaratory or remedial. Temporary or perpetual. 1. A temporary statute is one which is limited in its duration at the time of its enactment. It continues in force until the time of its limitation has expired, unless sooner repealed. A perpetual statute is one for the continuance of which there is no limited time, although it be not expressly declared to be so. If, however, a statute which did not itself contain any limitation, is to be governed by another which is temporary only, the former will also be temporary and dependent upon the existence of the latter.[2]

Before a statute becomes law in some countries, it must be agreed upon by the highest executive in the government, and finally published as part of a code. In many countries, statutes are organized in topical arrangements (or "codified") within publications called codes, such as the United States Code. In many nations statutory law is distinguished from and subordinate to constitutional law.

[patrickq1]

like you caro it is sickening to see thses receivers carrying on like they are doing ,they are the lowest form of **** and the building societies ought to be had for appointing a company who have deliberately caused severe losses, the likes of allsops should suffer loss for their actions , and also thelies that they have been telling over the best part of 18 months or so should not be allowed to continue...i think to issue the CPR would be a start and if this fails go back through a couple of threads and see where i have put in the reference to receiverships lasting 12 months , then issue court action , or bankruptcy only two choices left here

patrickq1

[diddled]

Tarquin

 

Wonder if this is of any help/interest to you. You've nothing to lose by giving them a ring.

Bullet no 3 jumped out at me.

 

Building societies have an obligation to find the " best price which can be reasonably obtained" whilst banks have a " duty of care" to a borrower. From 31st October 2004 the FSA mortgage rules say that all lenders must obtain the "best price that might reasonably be paid". It is possible to dispute the amount being claimed by the mortgage lender in some cases.

· If you can show that the house was sold for substantially below the proper market price taking into account the market conditions at the time of sale.

· If the house was not marketed sufficiently to obtain a good sale price.

· If you arranged a sale which was refused by the lender, but after repossession the house was sold by the lender for a much lower price.

· If the house stood empty for a very long time you may be able to argue that the mortgage company should have rented it out and therefore offset possible rental income against the shortfall balance.

· If the lender decides to leave the house empty and not sell it either , then you may have an argument for asking the court to order a sale .

If you feel any of these examples may apply to you phone us for advice.

] http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/mortgage_shortfalls.php#2