Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Banks have different limits above which they require Probate. So it may be Probate is not needed, although as he died with no Will that could complicate things. Is all the £28k with Virgin Money? Your wife should contact all banks who hold his money with the death certificate and ask them what they need to release the funds to her. Most banks have a central "bereavement department". Check their websites. Use that department rather than general call centre or bank branch. Your wife may also have to provide evidence that she is his daughter. When his wife died it sounds like they had a joint bank account so that's why her money just went across to him. But as it isn't a joint account now transfer to your wife won't be quite that simple.  
    • That explains it then. MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed.  'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky? The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.
    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Asset Recoveries UK hassling re mortgage shortfall from 2000- ** Statute barred ** :)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4638 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

Ok... that does tie in with what you've said as well. If they have a Deed of Assignment, then it implies that the debt's been sold by Absolute Assignment. I can't see how they'd have a D of A unless they'd bought it in their own right... or, are acting on behalf of someone else (Phoenix) who bought it... in which case, Aruk won't be able to take court action themselves anyway.

 

Looks like they might have a job producing the kind of paperwork we want to see in any case... ;)

This is the paragraph from the letter

 

The outstanding debt of £xxxxxxx representing the balance of the shortfall loss on the sale of the mortgaged property, was assigned to our client together with all rights vested in TMT under the documents giving rise to the shortfall debt, persuant to a Deed of Assignment dated X August 2007, notice of which assignment was given to you as required by section 136 Law of Property Act 1925, and accordingly our client now seeks repayment of all monies due and owing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is the paragraph from the letter

 

The outstanding debt of £xxxxxxx representing the balance of the shortfall loss on the sale of the mortgaged property, was assigned to our client together with all rights vested in TMT under the documents giving rise to the shortfall debt, persuant to a Deed of Assignment dated X August 2007, notice of which assignment was given to you as required by section 136 Law of Property Act 1925, and accordingly our client now seeks repayment of all monies due and owing.

 

Sold by Absolute Assignment (under the Law of Property Act, 1925). So their "client" does own it.... and it's got nothing to do with your original mortgage provider at all.

 

They still have to prove their claim to collect though... and so far, haven't produced anything under a SAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what makes me sick is the fact that you go through a bad time at some point in your life. You struggle for years with no help from anyone and you just start to get yourself back on your feet and lowlife people just want to take your happiness away from you. I have no debt, I live in rented accomodation. I have a job now cos all my kids up and gone. I am just starting to put a small amount away each week from my wages in the hope of a holiday this year. (only to local caravan park mind, curtisy of the sun £9.50 holidays) and this lands. No wonder people are more stressed now than ever before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what makes me sick is the fact that you go through a bad time at some point in your life. You struggle for years with no help from anyone and you just start to get yourself back on your feet and lowlife people just want to take your happiness away from you. I have no debt, I live in rented accomodation. I have a job now cos all my kids up and gone. I am just starting to put a small amount away each week from my wages in the hope of a holiday this year. (only to local caravan park mind, curtisy of the sun £9.50 holidays) and this lands. No wonder people are more stressed now than ever before.

 

Please try not to lose heart with all this IW.... I realise that it's overwhelming at times.

 

Reality check though.... you're in rented accomodation now with no assets. What's the worst they can do to you? There are no debtors' jails, they cannot torture you, they cannot remove items from your home because they're not bailiffs. If... and I say if.... this was to go to court and you were ordered to pay an amount towards a debt, it would be based upon what you could genuinely afford and no more.

 

My own situation was a lot more precarious than yours. Mine was a joint liability shortfall debt of £52K, which I got them to cut in half to £26K (not that it helped, but I was angry about paying for the ex because he was a violent man). What they didn't realise is that I'd gone on to buy another property by the time they made contact but the shortfall debt was not stat-barred. Mine was still with the original lender and because I was on Benefits at the time, they accepted £5 a month for a period of time before accepting a F&F settlement of £500 (five hundred pounds); an incredibly low F&F, I know.... and without ever going to court.

 

They could have done me a lot of damage. I knew it and the solicitor I saw knew it.... so I handled it alone. There are ways forward with this.... but you need to take one step at a time. There really is nothing much they can do to you though... :)

 

These people are not bailiffs, as already said. They are debt collectors. Debt collectors are not bailiffs. The only time bailiffs get involved is after a CCJ and Aruk/Phoenix are nowhere near getting a CCJ on you for this. If they had one, they would have said so.

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so p1, is it not looking good :(

 

I don't see what's changed :?

 

you have got a letter from a 'random company' purporting to represent a 'random foreign company' trying without any evidence to get money out of you.

 

As soon as ARUK's 40 days are up get your complaint in - as soon as the Phoenix letter comes back - again complain.

 

From what I have read this evening the statute barred timer starts from when you default on your payments - that has been accepted (and there is precedent for it) as being 2 months payments missed.

 

I will dig out the reference and the cases - should have bookmarked it when I read it :oops:

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like this is statute barred;

the onus is on them to prove that the alleged debt is not, statute barred.

 

IMO, there is much of interest here and;

sorry guys but this case is reminiscent of matters relating to National Home Loans and then GMAC (who were fined).

 

IW, please bear in mind that ARUK/phoenix will spin any yarn, in order to make you believe that they are right and you, are wrong.

 

At the end of the day, they will have to prove it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

: The question of when the mortgage debt actually became due has been argued at some length in the courts. The starting point is that the mortgage debt became due at the point when the lender was first entitled to repossess.

In most cases that will be the first time in the history of the mortgage that the borrower was in arrears for the equivalent of two monthly instalments. This means that the 12 year period may have started many years before the property was actually sold."

 

Wow, that's a little gem AC. If it is at the point of 'entitlement' that could be a year or two knocked off the SB period for some.

 

Are you sure on your dates IW bearing in mind what it says above.

 

M

 

PS reading with interest IW

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you all know, I loathe the: ****!

 

Looks like it could be Phoenix/ARUK are just about to be gently placed into a pittsburgh cauldron, nicely filled with boiling oil:

 

by IW: "And the price it was sold for was a silly price, no where near the market value."

 

To reiterate, GMAC were fined (securitization mortgage issues) for not treating customers fairly, as were kensington etc...mortgage trust?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, that's a little gem AC. If it is at the point of 'entitlement' that could be a year or two knocked off the SB period for some.

 

Are you sure on your dates IW bearing in mind what it says above.

 

M

 

PS reading with interest IW

 

Oh Yes!

 

:

"the mortgage debt became due at the point when the lender was first entitled to repossess."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"And the price it was sold for was a silly price, no where near the market value."
And this can work very well. The house I lost in the last recession went the same way - on the cheap! I used exactly that argument against Eversheds/Abbey and it worked for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.... providing there was no written acknowledgement in the meantime. IW has said that she told then to repossess in May 2000.... only 10 years ago.

 

Where do you get that from P1 - that the clock is 'restarted' in these cases?

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/cukpga_19800058_en_3#pt1-pb10-l1g25][/url]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/cukpga_19800058_en_3#pt1-pb10-l1g25

 

20 Time limit for actions to recover money secured by a mortgage or charge or to recover proceeds of the sale of land

 

(1)No action shall be brought to recover—

(a)any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property (whether real or personal); or

(b)proceeds of the sale of land;

after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued.

Edited by gh2008
got rid of teh stupid autolinker Grrrr

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was just quoting the Law :)

 

I've been reading through some judgements - they all say the same thing -

"twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued"

 

In none of the cases is there anything about acknowledgement. The Limitation Act actually singles out mortgage as special contracts and makes very specific points about them.

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was just quoting the Law :)

 

I've been reading through some judgements - they all say the same thing -

"twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued"

 

In none of the cases is there anything about acknowledgement. The Limitation Act actually singles out mortgage as special contracts and makes very specific points about them.

 

Unfortunately, there is. I'll post it up in a bit...

Link to post
Share on other sites

it does still apply

29(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a)any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

(b)any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

 

So 12 years from the last payment made directly from the debtor (as opposed to the sale or endowments or anything like that)

Or an outright acknowledgement of liability

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may refer to the gap between the issue of proceedings and the last payment under the mortgage... and if that's the case and there were in fact no proceedings from the OC (as it appears).... you may be right unless Aruk/Phoenix have managed/were hoping to sneak in just before the stat-barred status kicks in.

 

"In considering the question of acknowledgment, the adviser needs to review all documents that have passed between the parties since the last payment under the mortgage until the issue of proceedings, as one of those letters may amount to an acknowledgment of the indebtedness. It is for this reason that a borrower’s representative must be especially careful in responding to a letter before action if time has not yet expired. It is unnecessary to consider documents served after issue, such as a defence, because, if the claim was statute-barred before issue, the debt cannot be revived by any subsequent acknowledgement of it: s 29(7) LA 1980.

An acknowledgment need not quantify the debt due, it is sufficient that the amount owed may be ascertained by extrinsic evidence: Dungate v Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477. However, a document which admits all the facts necessary to give rise to liability, but in which the debtor denies that he is in fact liable, will not amount to an effective acknowledgement: Re Flynn [1969] 2 Ch 403. To be effective, the denial must amount to a denial of liability for all times and all purposes: Bank of Baroda v Mahomed [1999] Lloyds Rep Bank 14. A statement by the debtor that he is unable to pay the debt “at the moment” will constitute an acknowledgement because it amounts to an admission that the liability exists: Dungate." (Referring to communication between IW and the original creditor 10 years ago).

 

If we can ascertain whether acknowledgement only applies during the gap between last payment and legal proceedings, then it could be a stat-barred situation, yes. If acknowledgement also applies when legal proceedings have not taken place however, then we're not.

 

:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...