Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's genuinely amazing how you managed to rebuke pretty much all of my points without giving a single shred of evidence to prove it. When asked for evidence all you claim is that "it's clear cut" but how is anyone here meant to know if you won't show it?   I agree with this. If you can't convince us, how are you going to convince the judges when this inevitably goes to court?
    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
  • 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

Mortgage Shortfall County Court Claim Defence help needed


Loser4u
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4879 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

Claimant is claiming for Interest pursant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 at the rate of 8% from when the house was repossessed up to date of judgement.

 

Payments have been made since the repossession and within the last 2 years.

So the limitation of 12 years since payment isn't an option.

 

Can anyone help with the following

If interest is payable should it be from 6 years since the repossession or 6 years since the last payment. Alternatively have the payments made reset the clock for interest as well?.

 

If interest is payable is the rate coverered by regulated agreements and should be charged as the rate as per the agreements terms and conditions?

 

I have tried searching and couldn't find definitive answers

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claimant is claiming for Interest pursant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 at the rate of 8% from when the house was repossessed up to date of judgement.

 

Payments have been made since the repossession and within the last 2 years.

So the limitation of 12 years since payment isn't an option.

 

Can anyone help with the following

If interest is payable should it be from 6 years since the repossession or 6 years since the last payment. Alternatively have the payments made reset the clock for interest as well?.

 

If interest is payable is the rate coverered by regulated agreements and should be charged as the rate as per the agreements terms and conditions?

 

I have tried searching and couldn't find definitive answers

 

Thanks

My interpretation of this is

 

under s.69 county courts act 1984 and costs.

(4) Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.

As mortgages normally have the interest applied up front and are applicable until the mortgage is redeemed or paid off, it would seem correct to assume that s69 (4) applies in your case as the interest stipulated in the agreement would still be applicable

If the Terms and Conditions of the agreement you signed make no mention or allowance for the paying of s69 interest as per the claimants POC then it looks like they have no contractual right to apply interest either and since the statute that they are relying on actually states that they aren't allowed to apply S69 interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Commercial lenders usually include provisions for compound interest in their

contracts. In fact, so common is this arrangement that the courts have accepted

that bankers are entitled to compound interest even in the absence of a specific

contractual term, on the basis of an implied trade usage

Thus a borrower with a Mortgage, bank loan , credit card or store card debts will usually be required to pay compound interest up until the date of judgment.

Andy

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replies

The agreement is an application form with no reference to the terms and conditions and doesn't contain any clause in relation to interest - this is signed.

The terms and condition suppied are not from the same lender as the above application form and not signed by borrower so not relevant

This was a smaller building society who after a number of changes became part of the RBOS group.

 

Can I also include in my defence the following points in relation to the CML guidelines in relation to obtained the best price.

We had permission to rent the property out by the Leeds and when taken over by the Halifax we needed to reapply as they only give permission for a limited time and permission was refused.

We had an agent lined up along with a tenant and this would have covered the repayments

When they said no to renting out we got a valuation and an offer which although less than the outstanding balance was significantly more than the value they sold the property for.

We made this offer to the Halfax and they refused.

 

In the breakdown there are fees for services that we didn't receive - Counselling

The breakdown has different amounts to the summary for the same items although the totals are the same !!

Edited by Loser4u
Added extra info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...