Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

GE Money Secured Loans Ltd going for repo - PENALTY charges & PPI?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3198 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

Thread moved to Repossession Forum.

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

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent :) I'll have a think of the best way to present a defence.

 

I know it's easy for me to say, but try not to worry too much - I can't see a judge giving possession to a second charge lender for charges.

 

Did you take your charges and PPI claim to the ombudsman ?

 

I didn't get as far as the ombudsman, I was trying to push GE into dealing with the matter responsibly. Unfortunately they just didn't seem to care and were happy blaming everyone else. When my son received his diagnosis , everything had to take a back seat and we spent weeks at his bedside. Seems that since then, GE decided to go the court route.

 

Many thanks for your help Ell-enn, it is very greatly appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have something in mind for you to send to GE but I will send you a PM (private message) about that. In the meantime you should make a complaint to the FOS (complaint form affixed) regarding the PPI and also the charges. You will need to do 2 forms.

 

Do you have the spreadsheet of charges you sent to GE with your original complaint to them ? If so you will need to affix that to the FOS form.

 

The FOS will send you confirmation of your complaints with case numbers which will be very useful in your defence of the claim for possession. So we need to get this done as soon as possible.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Would the recent Plevin v Paragon decision delivered from the Supreme Court bear any influence. Obviously GE must have received a commission from the PPI sale making them jointly liable. Only GE would know the levels of commission disclosed to each party, leaving the claimant to question wether the PPI was value for money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

Just seen your post

 

 

whilst it is a different company it seems very similar to the case I am defending (home repo Prestige Finance)

you will see that they also are trying to repossess my home based on charges and interest only,

 

 

today I attended a hearing and the Judge said possession could not be granted simply on charges and interest payments

because the principle loan and interest had been paid,

 

 

he said that there was provision in case law to render this as unjust

- hope this helps you to calm a little, don't let them get you down, the help on this forum is excellent

and I have had a lot of support which has given me the will to see this through,

 

 

quite often these companies just try their luck to see what they can get,

I also appear to have been mis sold PPI by a company which is no longer in business,

but like you I only dealt with the loan company.

 

 

As you have been advised the loan company does have a responsibility in law

- after all if you brought a pair of shoes from M & S and they were faulty you would take them back to M & S

and not to the manufacturer!!

 

 

I know that simplifies the matter somewhat but surely makes the case.

 

I hope your son is on the mend, please don't worry it will be ok I am sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry for not updating this sooner. After sending various items of paperwork backwards and forwards and informing GE that I was prepared to counter claim we received notification 2 weeks before the court date from GE's solicitors that our attendance at court was not necessary and that they would be writing to the court to remove the case from its schedule. We had no further information as to why although the following day we received a letter from GE explaining that they were writing the outstanding amount off and that they were closing the account (deeds to be released 4 weeks from that date)

 

We had a letter today confirming the account is now closed and that they are not pursuing any outstanding balance although...... One comment that annoys me is:-

 

'We will update your credit file with the Credit Reference Agencies to 'partially settled'!

 

Is this entirely fair? Or simply the best I can hope for in this situation? Anything I can do about that?

 

Would sincerely like to thank Ell-enn and anyone else who offered advice, its a big weight off of our shoulders, not having this shadow hanging over us!! We can finally concentrate on our sons recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if its already defaulted doesn't mean a bean.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone else can help me with another issue relating to this situation.

 

 

Started digging through our credit file last night as a result of that letter,

could see that the GE mortgage has not updated yet as closed (not surprising)

although the default they apparently issued against us last year is not listed,

do they sometimes bluff about defaults in order to provoke a response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...