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

[caro]

Why don't you contact the press, Watchdog, Paul Lewis on Moneybox, Ian Pollock of the BBC, newspapers etc, not to mention MPs?

[pigland]

Important questions for MEX customers to answer;

 

Did one of the ex employee's of MEX set up Templetons?

 

Did Templetons sell out to LSL in February?

 

Do LSL own the valuers that value the properties that Templetons put up for sale?

 

Do LSL own the estate agents that sell the properties for the LPA receivers?

 

Do LSL own a big corporate letting department that manage a lot of properties under LPA receivership and do they get a percentage of the rent?

 

Would they charge other bolt on fees?

 

Would the borrower be responsible for these fees?

 

Would MEX ever look at assisted sales or lifetime receivership?

 

Who would they target? If you have an interest only mortgage and you only paid interest only could you be a target?

 

Look at Ireland!

 

Were the FSA instrumental in the Nationalisation of MEX?

 

Does the instruction of LPA receivers by MEX suit the FSA?

 

If the properties are sold and the loans repaid will this then go to the Government?

 

Were you really in trouble or were MEX in trouble?

 

Were you charged unfair fees?

 

Did your properties go into receivership at about the time MEX were being Nationalised?

 

What did happen to the £400million of shareholders money?

 

If 'your receiver' doesn't do their job properly have you instructed the lender not to pay their bills until you are satisfied?

[chillinlong]

Good suggestion Caro, I am currently trying to get MPs on board but so far they are not really interested eve though it is losing huge sums of taxpayers money.

 

Hi Pigland, long time no see!

 

Good questions but again it is not enough from a legal point of view to actually force them with anything as yet.

[chillinlong]

Now this is the biscuit, once again caught them in a property of mine.

 

This time, a neighbour rang so concerned about the noises coming from an empty property and water gushing out from the side after somebody had been to the premises on the day. I knew WS had changed the lock the week before I already knew about so it coud have only been on of there contractors as they only got keys. Now for the real truth, they had actually set the boiler on full pressure so that it fills up and is ready to blow the gas valve! I cannot believe a so called reputable LPA reciever is doing this on an empty property! This proves that they are doing this to damage further so that they can ensure nobody is able to live in the property and get it to be unhabitable and then they can sell.

 

This time, I have got witnesses of what has been going on and wait for it pictures of what they have done in the property! Now again the problem is I cannot bloody do anything about it, as solicitors says nothing I can do unless the property is sold then go for losses. But I want to bloody take the property back over because of actions like this.

 

Really frustrating surely there is a simple way to allow proper procedures to take place.

 

Still searching is this really corrupt that there is no way out of it.

[patrickq1]

they are in breach of a DUTY OF CARE and other laws endangering life bring in TRADING STANDARDS and oft , but also look at this what i posted a month ago it is a workable defence and should be used along with the CPR get it all before a magistrate ASAP

October 13 2010 On 8 October 2010 the High Court gave a second judgment in Scullion v Bank of Scotland Plc (2010). The claim arose from a negligent valuation of residential property and is unusual, insofar as the claimant here was not the mortgagee but the borrower. It is also likely to be of interest to insurers as, potentially, it widens the extent and scope of the duty owed by valuers to buy-to-let purchasers.

The first judgment on liability was given in March 2010. In it Richard Snowdon QC (sitting as a High Court judge) held that the principle in Smith v Bush imposes a duty of care to the purchaser of residential property at the lower end of the market upon the valuer instructed by the lender and should apply also to buy-to-let purchasers of similar property. This second judgment deals with issues of causation, quantum and contributory negligence.

Background

The claimant was a self-employed builder who decided to enter the buy-to-let market. In October 2002 he purchased a flat in Cobham, Surrey for £299,800. His intention was to let the flat for an amount which would enable him to pay the mortgage and outgoings and to obtain some extra income. In due course, he also hoped to make a capital profit from selling the flat.

Colleys (the valuation service of BoS) were retained to value the flat by the mortgagee, Mortgages plc. Subsequently, they advised that the market value of the flat was £352,950, whilst the rental value was £2,000 pcm.

After some initial difficulty, the claimant eventually managed to let the flat in April 2003, although the rent achieved was only £1,050 pcm. However, as he was unable to cover his overheads, the claimant sold the flat in May 2006 for £270,000. Of this sum, the claimant paid £260,000 to the mortgagee, leaving an outstanding balance of around £71,000.

The claim

The claimant alleged that both of the valuations provided by Colleys were negligent. As regards the market valuation, he alleged that he was entitled to damages of £30,000 (the difference between the actual value of the flat (£300,000) and the price achieved upon disposal (£270,000)), such loss being reasonably foreseeable. As regards the rental valuation, he alleged that but for the advice given he would not have entered into the transaction. Accordingly, he claimed to be entitled to all payments and expenses in relation the purchase and subsequent rental.

The judgment

Giving judgment, Richard Snowden QC held that:

• A duty of care was owed to the claimant by Colleys in tort.
  
• Colleys had breached that duty of care in respect of both valuations.
  
• Colleys knew that the claimant would rely on both valuations to decided whether or not to purchase the flat.
  
• SAAMCO principles applied, such that the claimant could recover only those losses which were a consequence of the valuations being wrong.
  
• The claimant could not therefore recover damages of £30,000, caused by a deterioration in the property market.
  
• The scope of the duty owed by Colleys to the claimant was not necessarily limited by the scope of their duty to the mortgagee.
  
• The claimant suffered no loss as a result of the market valuation, as he in fact paid less than the market value of the flat.
  
• The claimant could not recover his costs of purchasing the flat or the first payment of mortgage interest, those liabilities not being attributable to Colleys' negligence.
  
• Broadly, the claimant could recover the amount of his overheads (including his mortgage interest payments and general letting expenses), less the rental income he received.
  
• The claimant himself did nothing to cause or contribute to his losses.
  

Further and importantly, he held that:

• In circumstances where the claimant had acknowledged his outstanding debt to his mortgagee, there were no grounds to reduce the damages payable to the claimant on the grounds that no such liability existed; and
  
• the claimant could not be compelled to use his damages in a particular way.
  

Comment

This decision is likely to be of interest to valuers and their insurers as:

• It appears to extend the duty of care in tort enunciated in Smith v Bush (1990) 2 AC 605, owed by valuers to residential purchasers, to commercial buy-to-let investors.
  
• It fails to draw any distinction between the duties owed by a valuer in relation to rental valuation and capital valuations, notwithstanding that the valuer has no control over rental receipts or their use.
  
• It confirms that valuers (and in turn their insurers) may be held liability for losses sustained by buy-to-let investors, over and above those of any mortgagee.
  
• It is a reminder that, generally, a borrower will not be compelled to apply any damages to discharge an outstanding debt to his mortgagee.
  

While the time to lodge an appeal against this decision has yet to expire, in its current form, this decision risks promoting yet further claims against valuers, who have already sustained a vigorous attack by lenders. However, in similar such cases by borrowers, it may be possible to distinguish this decision where there is evidence to show that the borrower is a large scale investor to whom no duty was owed. As part of any negotiated settlement and to avoid the risk of a subsequent claim by any lender, it may also be possible to agree terms for payment of all or part of the settlement sum to the lender direct.

[chillinlong]

Thanks for this PAtrick, the only issue is this is something that can only be used once the properties have been sold rather than withhelding action during LPA recievership.

[charlesGGG]

OK.

 

I have my day in court with the lawyers for the LPA in a few weeks.

 

I am looking for ideas on how to present the case simply and straight forward to the courts. I'm clearly not a solicitor, So I want to draft something I can read out for and on the record, covering the areas of:-

 

-Clarity on who the LPA really work for (if they say me, then they are sacked)

-Contract is unilateral and favours lender so unfair and unenforceable - UTTCR)

- I want to see all original docs (to verify proof of ownership - is MX still the holder in due course)

-Was LPA correctly appointed (did not get inital letter offering me the chance to clear arrears)

-Injunction to be party to sale (incase the court says LPA can remain as managers)

-No arrears on the account, yet MX wont remove LPA (how to prove rescinsion of contract)

 

Other points of note:-

on reading through the T&C that I have, it nowhere states that this is a buy-to-let mortgage. in fact it actually says you will live in the property and ask our permission to rent or sublet. But all along MX have been saying its a buy to let. ALSO the copy of the mortgage deed submitted to court mentions nothing about LPA just the T&C

 

When we argue that we did not give "expressed written consent" for either appointment of LPA or acceptance of T&C - is there a case law that anyone knows of we can use.

[chillinlong]

Wow, I was just researching some similiar stuff again aswell, there has got to be something here but looking for that point I can bloody get them on.

 

- That is my argument with LPA they are not acting in my best interest nor as my agent.

- Can you say unenforacable if they turn round and say that you are a businessman and should have know this when you signed, different if you have only one home mortgage and was not aware of this.

- Securitisation - I am still tryin to determine, does it make a bloody difference so much case law and no real answers.

- I flagged this up with MX about not recieving any 7 day notice before appointing recievers to resolve, no response from them as usual.

- you shoud be able to get injunction to sell property, but have you thought about renting it then if more income than mortgage they cannot justify to sell?

- I am in same situation, no arrears and now they refuse to hand properties back even though this is what they promised at the beginning. What next ?

 

I am going to PM you now.

 

Please let us know how you get on in court? On what basis have you applied to court for a hearing? A court direction on the above points is it?

[caro]

If MX were well aware that you wanted the mortgage for a BTL property I think you could argue that this was their decision to sell you this product. Do you know why they gave you an ordinary mortgage and were you made aware of it before signing on the dotted line?

[charlesGGG]

Hi All...ALSO

 

I wanted to ask Carmel Butler, to appear as special witness, to explain and drive home the securitisation issue to the judges.....does anyone have a contact etc etc etc...?????

 

this would be just one agnle of the many other points.

[charlesGGG]

Thanks for PM messages folk...together we will bring down the house of Babylon - figuratively speaking of course.

[caro]

Might be worth making contact. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=191&a=202

[chillinlong]

Hi Caro,

 

Tried getting onto this link but coming up with:

 

ou do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
   
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
   

Thanks

[caro]

Hmm. It should take you to BankFodders announcement about a new series Dominic Littlewood is making. I'm not sure if this would be of interest to him, but it won't hurt to send an email. Try this link. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?163-Debt-Action-Group

[patrickq1]

patrickq1, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page

[patrickq1]

no doubt Carmel will be watching the thread...i will send her a note see if she has time to contact you

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

ive sent Carmel a Message ,

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtreasy/478/47813.htm

Written evidence submitted by Carmel Butler

 

 

 

"The lending of money, on mortgage or otherwise, was looked on with suspicion, and the Court was on the alert to discover want of conscience in the terms imposed by lenders".[67]

 

 

(Viscount Haldane, Lord Chancellor, 1913) BRIEF INTRODUCTION

[patrickq1]

CHARLES DID YOU HAVE THE SOLICITOR DRAW UP YOUR DETAILS CONCERNING THE mORTGAGE OR DID THIS SOLICITOR ACT FOR BOTH YOU AND THE LENDER, ITS JUST A THOUGHT AS THIS IS A VERY STRANGE ON, PLUS YOU CANNOT BE EVICTED FROM YOUR OWN HOME UNDER THE MORTGAGE EVEN CONSIDERING IT IS AS FAR AS YOU WERE AWARE A BUY TO LET...BUT TO EVICT YOU THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO COURT THEY CANNOT BY PASS THIS PROCCESS..WHO IS THE lpa IS THIS TEMPLETONS ?

IF SO WHAT INFORMATION HAVE YOU RECEIVED FROM tEMPLETONS I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SAR THEM AND WHAT INFORMATION HAVE YOU RECEIVED ,

ON THE COLLECTION OF RENTALS FROM THE PROPERTY WHAT INFORMATION HAVE THEY SUPPLIED YOU WITH

HAVE THEY MADE ANY REPAIR CHARGES THAT YOU DISPUTE

SO MANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE ?

PATRICKQ1

[patrickq1]

 

IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT A BUY TO LET ON HOME OWNER PROPERTIES PROPERTIES

 

THE BUILDING SOCIETY WERE WELL AWARE OF IT ...SO READ BELOW THEY SEEM TO HAVE PERPRETATED IN WHAT AMOUNTS TO FRAUD ?

 

 

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

 

Landlords who use owner occupied mortgages committing fraud

 

Landlords that are tempted to take out an owner-occupier mortage as a way of securing more benificial terms to purchase a buy-to-let property are committing fraud according to the industry organisation The Council of Mortgage Lenders.

 

Landlord insurance - professional rates - discounted

 

Landlords tenants disadvantaged.

It could also put the landlord's tenants at a disadvantage should the landlord stop paying the mortgage.

 

This is because specialist buy-to-let mortgage products have a mechanism in place to accept tenants' rent in place of mortgage payments which negates the need for court action and the possibility of repossession.

 

An owner-occupier mortgage on a rented property can lead to problems for the tenant if the landlord fails to keep up repayments and also increases the risk for the lender, with the CML describing such behaviour as "irresponsible".

 

"Everyone sympathises with those tenants who are paying their rent, and fulfilling their obligations, but who find that their landlord has not been paying their mortgage and not told their lender that they are renting out the property," said director general Michael Coogan.

 

"Good tenants should not be disadvantaged, and nor should lenders, by the irresponsible behaviour of a small minority of landlords. We look forward to working with the government and advice agencies on effective measures to help the modest number of tenants affected."

 

CIFAS warning

The other risk to landlords of trying to obtain a owner occupation mortgage is an impairment of their credit rating should they be found out. This is activated by a lender who identifies a borrower trying to access funds fraudently potentially including the borrowers details on the CIFAS register. This warning will remain on a landlords credit file and be shared between other CIFAS members. Lenders can take this warning into account when looking to advance funds to the landlord in future

[patrickq1]

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Under the Regulations, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has an obligation to consider any complaint made to it about the fairness of any contract term drawn up for general use. OFT may seek assurances and, if necessary, injunctions against those using terms which it considers to be unfair. Certain other named bodies are also empowered to seek injunctions against unfair terms.

[charlesGGG]

Hi Patrickq1 & All,

 

Further to your comments see our response in red type;-

 

1.

CHARLES DID YOU HAVE THE SOLICITOR DRAW UP YOUR DETAILS CONCERNING THE mORTGAGE OR DID THIS SOLICITOR ACT FOR BOTH YOU AND THE LENDER.

Solicitor acted for both of Us

 

2.

ITS JUST A THOUGHT AS THIS IS A VERY STRANGE ON, PLUS YOU CANNOT BE EVICTED FROM YOUR OWN HOME UNDER THE MORTGAGE EVEN CONSIDERING IT IS AS FAR AS YOU WERE AWARE A BUY TO LET...BUT TO EVICT YOU THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO COURT THEY CANNOT BY PASS THIS PROCCESS..WHO IS THE lpa IS THIS TEMPLETONS ?

Not Quite....it is my tenants that they are evicting, by claiming that they are trespassers.

The LPA (Templeton) has been to court and obtained a possession order for unknown persons. We as legal owners/landlords, have then counter claimed with the N244 to say the LPA are acting beyond their bounds and are not consulting or providing a duty of care etc etc.

If they bothed to contact us they would have known there was a lawful tenancy.

 

3.

IF SO WHAT INFORMATION HAVE YOU RECEIVED FROM tEMPLETONS I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SAR THEM AND WHAT INFORMATION HAVE YOU RECEIVED.

We've Sar'ed the lender (MX) and told them to remove LPA or else, as far as we are concerned the contract has been rescinded and they are now mortgagees in possession - no response as yet or any information, but this was done recently.

We have also sent LPA and their lawyers CPR rules of engagement letter, again awaiting response.

 

4.

ON THE COLLECTION OF RENTALS FROM THE PROPERTY WHAT INFORMATION HAVE THEY SUPPLIED YOU WITH HAVE THEY MADE ANY REPAIR CHARGES THAT YOU DISPUTE SO MANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE ?

No info supplied yet.

[charlesGGG]

Just another interesting thing. The original solicitor that acted for both us and the lender also did a whole bunch of other mortgages in this new build building and it transpires that they have absconded several years ago and the Law Society Body is chasing them for improper conduct on a lot of issues, the practice has been wound down taken over by investigators/administrators etc etc.

[patrickq1]

charles do you have written evidence that it is a buy to let ,if so i would be sending a copy to MX and hold them responsible and like you have put it reccicion of contract is a valid point for them to consider so a further claim for damages not just from yourself but from the tennants also ,they must also submit a claim for damages

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

• European Union, United Kingdom
  
• 
  
• October 29 2010
  

On 21 September 2010, in the case of Kay v United Kingdom, the ECHR was asked to decide whether occupiers of land should have an opportunity to contest possession orders made against them on the ground that such orders were disproportionate, taking into account the personal circumstances of the occupiers.

The facts, in summary, are that the London Borough of Lambeth (Lambeth) owned a number of properties which were unsuitable for normal housing use. The properties formed part of the “short life” property of Lambeth, meaning that they were scheduled for demolition or redevelopment. In 1977, Lambeth began licensing short life property to the London and Quadrant Housing Trust (LQHT), in order that the latter could provide temporary accommodation for homeless people to whom Lambeth owed a statutory duty to arrange accommodation. In 1995, the licence arrangement was replaced by individual ten-year leases of each property granted to LQHT by Lambeth. The leases were subject to a break clause allowing either party to terminate the leases early on just over six months' notice. In 1999, Lambeth gave notice to terminate the head leases to LQHT. In November 1999, LQHT advised the applicants that the head leases had been terminated. In August 2000, Lambeth brought summary possession proceedings. Since then the legal proceedings have continued.

The court said that "the loss of one's home is the most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home. Any person at risk of an interference of this magnitude should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, his right to occupation has come to an end."

The ECHR concluded that the decision by British courts to strike out the defence meant that the procedural safeguards for the assessment of the proportionality of the interference were not observed. As a result, the applicants were dispossessed of their homes without any possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal.

what this means for social landlords

In other words, the human rights of the occupier had been breached because he had not been given the opportunity, in the possession proceedings, to ask a court to take into consideration his personal circumstances.

All this means that:

 

• a landlord cannot claim possession (other than from a trespasser) without a court having an opportunity to consider the merits of the claim
  
• this is so, even if by our domestic law, any right to occupy has come to an end
  
• the court should take into consideration the personal circumstances of the occupier, when deciding whether to make an order for possession
  
• 'personal circumstances' means the impact a possession order would have on the occupier