Help! Husband's 18year old mortgage debt landed on our doorstep today. I'm terrified.

[perplexedofdorset]

ok, so no section 20 letter.

on a brighter note, hahahahaha

we have had lovely weather recently, hot hot hot and sunny and i have been driving around with the roof off my little car....and

[perplexedofdorset]

i am now the proud owner of the only mobile swimming pool in Dorset!!!

[dx100uk]

 

dx

[rdm2006]

Ppofd

 

Or even PoD - Perplexed of Dorset

[perplexedofdorset]

BAD NEWS UPDATE

 

SS's have responded and I am afraid its not as clear and simple as i had hoped.

 

They say my husband apparently made a payment of £200.00 in June 2000 towards this debt.

I had secretly feared this would be the case because although i asked him outright at the start of this nightmare he was not as sure as he could have been.

 

The reason for this is that in 2000 the toxic marriage he was in was falling apart, he had been made redundant and was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

 

Furthermore SS's state that they have a 'proposal on file from him of £1000.00 to conclude his legal liability on 27th October 2004 acknowledging his legal liabilty '

What does this actually mean????

SS's say the Halifax would consider 'a one off lump sum on a without prejudice basis and subject to negotiation will accept less than the outstanding balance'

or monthly repayments!!! yeah right!

 

obviously he is away again and i will speak to him about these developments but could i have some of your good help and advice please.

we simply don't have that sort of cash around or access to that amount, short of a lottery win!!!

 

is there some way we could say he wasn't in a fit state at the point of that payment, having a nervous breakdown and all or...

 

REALLY REALLY NEED YOUR EXPERIENCE HELP AND ADVICE NOW GUYS!!!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Personally I would like to see a copy of ''the proposal''

as it seems he may have admitted in writing liability

for a ''share''of the debt ( legal liability as they say).

If you can get certified medical evidence of his

condition at the time it may well mitigate the situation

some what.

[king100]

You will need to SAR them, you also need to find out how this proposal was made, must be in writing as notes in accounts would not suffice, if they did every DCA that had SB accounts would write a memo note stating that a proposal has been made.

 

You also need to hopefully find bank statements from that period or at least find details of how that payment was made. You need specific info concerning it.

 

They could have fabricated the £200 payment in 2000 hopefully knowing that you either have no records to deny it, this gives them at least a year to try and get the money from him.

[king100]

Brigadier

 

Don't you think that if DCA had any valid proof then why would they be offering a reduced figure as well as monthly payments? This doesn't sit right with me. Personally if I had all the proof letter admitting debt plus a payment in 2000 I would be off to court to seal the deal, not offering reduced payments.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That offer was made in October 2007 to the posters husband

in response to his admission to the liability the bank having responsibility

to mitigate may well have made a reasonable proposal for the repayment

of the balance at that time.

[sillygirl1]

You can still use the statute barred argument and the fact that it is unreasonable of them to have a document from 2000 and not act on it sooner, I wouldn't mind betting they pressurised your husband on the phone into making an agreement, you need to ask them SPECIFICALLY for this document to check that the address ties in with where he was living at the time, and ask for the full details of the payment, it has been known for these payments to have been 'attempted' on the system -(in one case I remember the person concerned couldn't have made the payment as they were in Afghanistan at the time recovering from war injuries ..)

[unclebulgaria67]

I would suggest that you treat the information from Shoosmiths as being dubious.

 

Think about this. If there was a payment made in 2000 and correspondence in 2004, why has there then been nothing until 2011 ? I don't think this is because they found out the address following an unrelated parking fine. They would have been able to have found his contact details via his credit records, as I presume he had various financial arrangements in the meantime.

 

Suggest that he writes back asking for proof of the information that is contained in their letter. It is up to Shoosmiths to prove that the £200 payment in 2000 came from him and not from another source. If this ever went to court Shoosmiths would have to show that your husband had made this payment. Also in regard to 'proposal on file from him of £1000.00 to conclude his legal liability on 27th October 2004 acknowledging his legal liabilty ', why have they not sent a copy of this ? If this went to court they would need to be able to show this.

 

So just write back asking for the two bits of information. 1) Proof that the £200 payment was made by him and 2) a copy of the 27/10/04 proposal.

 

Keep it simple. Just ask for that information and do no more. It is up to them to provide the proof. No point asking his bank, as they normally can only provide statements going back 6 or 7 years.

[sillygirl1]

The 2004 proposal needs to be seen in its original state, maybe that too was after a phone call...

[king100]

But a phone call in 2004 does not restart the SB clock, and I doubt that they have a recording of the conversation.

 

Unless I am wrong!!!

[Ell-enn]

I would suggest that you treat the information from Shoosmiths as being dubious.

 

Think about this. If there was a payment made in 2000 and correspondence in 2004, why has there then been nothing until 2011 ? I don't think this is because they found out the address following an unrelated parking fine. They would have been able to have found his contact details via his credit records, as I presume he had various financial arrangements in the meantime.

 

Suggest that he writes back asking for proof of the information that is contained in their letter. It is up to Shoosmiths to prove that the £200 payment in 2000 came from him and not from another source. If this ever went to court Shoosmiths would have to show that your husband had made this payment. Also in regard to 'proposal on file from him of £1000.00 to conclude his legal liability on 27th October 2004 acknowledging his legal liabilty ', why have they not sent a copy of this ? If this went to court they would need to be able to show this.

 

So just write back asking for the two bits of information. 1) Proof that the £200 payment was made by him and 2) a copy of the 27/10/04 proposal.

 

Keep it simple. Just ask for that information and do no more. It is up to them to provide the proof. No point asking his bank, as they normally can only provide statements going back 6 or 7 years.

 

 

Absolutely! the proposal in 2004 would need to be in writing and if it's only notes on a file from a conversation that won't do.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Uncle, I reckon this may be a written admission

of liability and that's why the offer was made.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi Uncle, I reckon this may be a written admission

of liability and that's why the offer was made.

 

I doubt it. Why have they not provided copies. If you have a trump card and want to get money from someone, you play it now. They have not shown their hand, as they don't have one. It is all BLUFF.

[cerberusalert]

Don't forget there's the Mortgage Lenders code where they've agreed not to pursue shortfalls after six years.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290234-Am-I-Liable-for-mortgage-losses&p=3264940&viewfull=1#post3264940

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Unless if missed something I can't find earlier reference to

this admission and any request for a copy.

[unclebulgaria67]

Unless if missed something I can't find earlier reference to

this admission and any request for a copy.

 

Relevance ?

 

As I see it. The OP's husband receives a standard debt letter, this is responded to saying it is SB'd, so Shoosmiths have a look at a summary record probably from a spreadsheet or basic log and they see it states the 2000 payment and 2004 proposal, hence their letter. The OP's husband had been through a turbulent period, so they may not remember. They need Shoosmiths to provide evidence.

 

Keep it simple I say.

[sillygirl1]

The onus is still on Shoosmiths (horrible lot) to prove that the debt is not statute barred and still collectable. I am wondering why they have a proposal for £10,000 they have not followed it through much earlier..... and the bits about legal liability sounds very much like their waffle trying to prove the unproveable.

 

They are still very much in breach of the CML mortgage code so a complaint about them is in order.

[dx100uk]

+the letter means nothing

 

as for the payment.

 

yea ok, i wouln'td believe SS if they paid ME.

 

ask for PROOF of who paid that £200

 

never ever trust a DCA nor their 'tame' 'fake' solicitors.

 

game NOT over yet.

 

dx

[rdm2006]

Don't forget there's the Mortgage Lenders code where they've agreed not to pursue shortfalls after six years.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290234-Am-I-Liable-for-mortgage-losses&p=3264940&viewfull=1#post3264940

 

Also remember that Halifax ARE an MLC member, so aspiring to be part of this council but not adhering to its code of practice is a criminal offence under CPUTR 2008

 

Under this code the limit is 6 years not 12 remember - therefore, whatever they have in 2004, it's still too late.

 

I would be tempted to remind SS's of this CRIMINAL offence

Edited August 5, 2011 by rdm2006

[perplexedofdorset]

phew!!! lots to digest there.

 

Just got back from treatment at the hospital.

Husband is here but he cannot remember paying or agreeing, but why would they say these things if they were false.

 

by the way its £1000.00, One thousand not ten thousand that was the figure in 2004...would they have really accepted that?????

 

Incidentally the October 2004 thing is an interesting date as we were together then, very early days and we kept a record of what we did in those days,..(.rekindled love story after oodles of years)

i feel some rummaging is in order,and some husband interrogation.

 

i need to know what to do next, could we have a poll?

you guys have been so fab...i would like your advice.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, get to it just might turn up something useful, including happy

memories, have a good rummage:madgrin:

[unclebulgaria67]

Just a repeat of advice from earlier.

 

Suggest that he writes back asking for proof of the information that is contained in their letter. It is up to Shoosmiths to prove that the £200 payment in 2000 came from him and not from another source. If this ever went to court Shoosmiths would have to show that your husband had made this payment. Also in regard to 'proposal on file from him of £1000.00 to conclude his legal liability on 27th October 2004 acknowledging his legal liabilty ', why have they not sent a copy of this ? If this went to court they would need to be able to show this.

 

So just write back asking for the two bits of information. 1) Proof that the £200 payment was made by him and 2) a copy of the 27/10/04 proposal.

 

You can do a bit of rummaging, but I would have thought that one of you would have remembered making such an offer. Did they not write back or was this not received, as he had moved address ?

 

In regard to your earlier comment about Shoosmiths making information up. It might not be the case, but an error on their part. Perhaps they have been provided with garbled data from Halifax and they have confused this information with another case they are chasing. ( I am giving them the benefit of doubt that it was an error and not a falsehood)