Jump to content


repo action question


spot
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3482 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

1. No - but the order contains the terms for payment.

2. Yes - but also no. The T&Cs are the same as previously - but you consented to the content of the Tomlin Order, which you are bound by (so are they).

3. No - the Tomlin Order schedule will contain the terms of the order itself.

 

4. No need to expressly state it's secured on the mortgage deed if it was secured before. The Tomlin Order is simply the agreement made between parties to stay any proceedings and contains the terms relating to what must occur for proceedings to be stayed. It's binding on both parties. If either party breaches the order, they can return to court for remedy.

 

Overall, the schedule would need to contain a term for variation if that is what you are seeking. I suggest you see a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very kind of you, thank you Lea-HTH

 

In your learned opinion then, given I accept all the terms of the consent order of 2009 and the schedule, in that a sum, albeit a questionable sum, has been documented in that schedule as what I am allegedly accepting to pay and I take it all on the chin, does it mean that I no longer have any rights to question aspects of any of the loan terms and conditions or who ought to regulate any part of that collection of consolidated loans of which there are 3 added at various times since 1989 which form the 2006 earlier agreement upon which this Tomlin now sits?

 

I guess it's a bit chicken and egg because if I am effectively accepting (reluctantly or otherwise) that the Tomlin figure is what I agreed to repay, then any remedy I seek on older loans will matter not a hoot as I still have that Tomlin figure to repay?

 

So, let us take a somewhat extreme, but possible argument. What if I now find that one of these loans taken long ago, but which still formed part of these consolidated loans in 2006 kicked the whole loan into a CCA loan territory rather than an RMC and effectively under the CCA the loan should be written off, in full - where do I stand seeking a remedy?

 

The solicitors for the bank are now refusing to supply any of the terms and conditions relating to any of the consolidated loans as it would be 'irrelevant' - is that right?

 

Sorry to split hairs, but this is important.

 

Thanks

 

spot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without looking at the specifics of the order and the schedule behind it (I am not able to do so), I wouldn't be able to say anymore than I already have. You really ought to let a solicitor have a look at the paperwork, as that is the only way you will have a concrete opinion based on all the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...