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

[gh2008]

BUT I've read about 10 judgements this evening (both for and against the debtors) - I know how sad

and not one of them even tried to extend the 12 years from the 'default date'.

 

Just to point out IW this is speculation and debate where we are all learning and discussing - this is NOT relevant to your case at the moment - so relax

[gh2008]

Good post P1

 

Maybe a SAR to the OC is required then ........

[PriorityOne]

BUT I've read about 10 judgements this evening (both for and against the debtors) - I know how sad

and not one of them even tried to extend the 12 years from the 'default date'.

 

 

If that is the case.... and I hope it is.... then it's looking much more positive for IW.

 

[PriorityOne]

 

Maybe a SAR to the OC is required then ........

 

Probably, yes.... 'coz I doubt that Aruk will back off on hearsay, so to speak.

 

Now we know it's been sold by Absolute Assignment though, there's no risk to her by getting in touch with the OC; as it's got nothing to with them anymore.

 

[angry cat]

PriorityOne,

I would love to know just how ARUK are going to be able to prove that, the alleged debt is NOT statute barred?

 

Perhaps, ARUK would care to show the exact course that this securitized debt took on its travels?

 

Did the securitization take place through the UK? (equitable)

 

Did the debt seller obtain HMRC tax relief on the charge-off?

 

What about the interest?

 

How much interest was levied?

6 years?

or, more than 6 years?

 

Last question:

 

Was the consumer in question, treated fairly by the lender?

 

Who was the lender?

 

First National;

Britannic;

Mortgage Trust or;

another...

[PriorityOne]

PriorityOne,

I would love to know just how ARUK are going to be able to prove that, the alleged debt is NOT statute barred?

 

 

I don't think Aruk will be able to prove anything at all actually ..... hence the cack response (to date) to the SAR, but that doesn't mean they'll back off in a hurry....

 

It'll be interesting to see what their next letter in response to IWs complaint tries to state though...

 

[PriorityOne]

Another interesting read if this is indeed stat-barred....

 

Alternatively, the limitation period may have been extended by a part-payment made “in respect of” the debt. A part-payment is a species of acknowledgment. A part-payment will only have the effect of restarting the clock if it amounts to an admission that the balance of the debt remains due: Surrendra. The act and intention of the debtor are vitally important in considering whether the limitation period has been extended by a part-payment: Re Footman, Brewer & Co Ltd [1961] Ch 443. Indeed, if it appears from the circumstances that the debtor making the payment did not intend to admit that the whole or a particular part of the debt was due, it is arguable that this does not extend the limitation period in relation to the whole of the debt. The debtor must be actively involved in the part-payment. This is why time does not begin again on the sale of the property and payment of proceeds of sale to the bank.

 

Presumably, this is what Aruk were trying to be adamant about in previous correspondence; that the period of limitation began on the point of sale/transfer of funds. Not so...

[angry cat]

They are pee'ing in the wind................!

[PriorityOne]

They are pee'ing in the wind................!

 

In all directions, it seems....

[angry cat]

They have to try;

if you were in their position, wouldn't you!?

[PriorityOne]

They have to try;

if you were in their position, wouldn't you!?

 

I s'pose I might if I were an anally retentive, no-brainer with less than zero in the personality stakes....

 

[angry cat]

I s'pose I might if I were an anally retentive, no-brainer with less than zero in the personality stakes....

 

 

It is all about the Money $$$USD!

[PriorityOne]

It is all about the Money $$$USD!

 

Yep... money and power in an increasingly selfish and greedy world..

[spamheed]

If they took this to court at the present moment, how exactly would they expect to win with absolutely no paperwork and clear evidence that they and the Luxemburgers have obstructed the debtor in their legitimate attempts to clarify the status of the alleged debt.

 

Up to now, they have refuted that the internet is a viable source of reference and any information found there is somehow inadmissable

 

They have refuted that the debt is statute barred, but have made no attempt to prove it (how could they actually prove this?)

 

They have made no attempt to fulfill a legal SAR

 

There are even doubts that Phoenix have a right to trade in the UK

 

Nothing has changed from the very beginning of the thread, the alleged creditor is still nothing more than a metaphorical fat lad standing at the door shouting his mouth off.

 

IW - I am so glad you are getting real support and assistance with this.

[irate-wife]

Hi all, just an update of whats gone on today. I recieved returned letters from Luxembourg and it says reason for return parti, dont know what that means, will have to look it up. Next bit of news was a phone call from ARUK asking about letter they sent, I told them all correspondence by letter, she was very persistant so I repeated all correspondence by letter and that I had logged the phone call and I hung up. . Dont know where I got the confidence from to do that, maybe its becuse I know I got friends helping me.

[gh2008]

so I repeated all correspondence by letter and that I had logged the phone call and I hung up. . Dont know where I got the confidence from to do that, maybe its becuse I know I got friends helping me.

 

and although you were probably shaking - didn't it feel good

 

:lol: Well Done You !! :lol:

[irate-wife]

Thanks Gh, it felt really good and I was shaking.

[PriorityOne]

You're doing well IW.... .... taking control is a great feeling!!

[angry cat]

 

I recieved returned letters from Luxembourg and it says reason for return parti, dont know what that means, will have to look it up."

 

I believe it means; left the building or moved away.

[angry cat]

As stated prior, send the SAR to their London address!

[gh2008]

As stated prior, send the SAR to their London address!

 

AC please please please - Phoenix Recoveries (UK) Limited S.a.r.l Do Not have a London address.

 

It is a Luxembourg based Luxembourg Company - wholly owned 12,500 shares by another Luxembourg Company (CVI CVG (Lux) Master S.a.r.L.). It is managed by Gregor Klaedtke with Patrick Lsurger and Mirko Fischer

 

(and yes it is the 'British Airways' Mirko Fischer)

Edited February 19, 2010 by gh2008
added BA bit

[PriorityOne]

Personally, I wouldn't bother sending the SAR anywhere now.... until you get a response back from Aruk. Depending on what they send back, it may be better to correspond with the original creditor in order to determine stat-barred status once and for all.

 

[humbleman]

IW

 

Did you SAR Mortgage Trust. That will show you who the shortfall was sold to.

[PriorityOne]

IW

 

Did you SAR Mortgage Trust. That will show you who the shortfall was sold to.

 

Not yet Humbleman.... but Aruk have claimed that they're acting for Phoenix who bought it under The Law of Property Act, 1925; by Absolute Assignment.

 

[angry cat]

IW

 

Did you SAR Mortgage Trust. That will show you who the shortfall was sold to.

 

Already suggested that!