RLP allegedly making a claim in their own name !

[Peterbard]

If, as my reading of this case is off on a slight tangent, surely a mortgage shortfall cannot be legal as it is claiming damages - ie the remaining part of the contract which cannot now take place as the property has been seized and resold.... means that you can use Dunlop in a mortgage shortfall claim?

 

HI SG

 

Proportionality is not relevant in a core term, the amount to be repaid under the contract is not a contractual breach, it is the contract.

[silverfox1961]

Having still not seen any evidence of this case, can anyone find out more? I have seen nothing on other sites not have RLP mentioned this (as you would have expected). The name of the retailer would be a start.

 

It all seems very odd to me.

[old bill]

Picking up on sillygirl1's post, case law on mortgages is changing all the time. Also, you need to go right back to the beginning of the mortgage and, often, before, to the offer, to establish whether the alleged lender does, in fact, have a right to foreclose and to seek possession.

 

In England and Wales, a mortgagee is more likely to find equitable justice in the High Court than in the lower courts, which, thanks to PCOL, have become little more than rubber-stamping offices.

[Peterbard]

A little unsure what you mean here OB, the provisions for foreclosure on a title under deed is prescribed in the LOPA and under statute.

[old bill]

You clearly think lenders and solicitors are above reproach, don't you, Dodgeball. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. Don't think for one minute that the LOPA will extricate a lender from the excrement. I've been involved in helping people with repossession cases which are no more than blatant land grabbing.

[Peterbard]

Calm down OB

 

Just asking for an explanation of what you meant mate.

Putting aside you personal dislikes what do you mean by all this please. The lopa is clear on what constitutes a breach and what entitles the mortgagee to foreclose. Regulation of agreements does place certain provisions which must be complied with, but these again are a matter of law(statute).

 

So I am interested to know what you are referring to notwithstanding your beliefs on how corrupt the system is.

[cjcregg]

Having still not seen any evidence of this case, can anyone find out more? I have seen nothing on other sites not have RLP mentioned this (as you would have expected). The name of the retailer would be a start.

 

It all seems very odd to me.

 

 

 

All I can say is that in response to the substitution of claimant application the court ordered that the retailer serve POCs by 21 March which to date they haven't done.

[old bill]

Calm down OB

 

Just asking for an explanation of what you meant mate.

Putting aside you personal dislikes what do you mean by all this please. The lopa is clear on what constitutes a breach and what entitles the mortgagee to foreclose. Regulation of agreements does place certain provisions which must be complied with, but these again are a matter of law(statute).

 

So I am interested to know what you are referring to notwithstanding your beliefs on how corrupt the system is.

 

Provided a lender has complied with the law TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW, then there should be no problem.

 

However, in more recent times, when cases are stripped back to the bare bones, shortcomings, omissions and irregularities in the offer, setting up and conduct of the mortgage itself are revealed. My practice is to take a mortgage right back to when the mortgagee first approached the lender and then come forward, examining paperwork, conduct and proceedings. I am looking for things that are out of kilter with due legal process. Bear in mind that a contract is only enforceable if a court rules it to be. Under English Law, a contract cannot be made or exist or be enforced if it allows any of the parties to the contract to do anything unlawful or illegal.

 

sillygirl1 was asking if the ruling in Dunlop Rubber Tyre Company -v- New Street Garage and Motor Co [1915] could be applied to a mortgage. In my view, no it could not. If the mortgagor has been indemnified by a Mortgage Indemnity Insurance policy, then any attempt to double or even triple dip would amount to Unjustifiable Enrichment. A court would be persuaded to strike out the mortgagor's claim if that became apparent during the course of proceedings.

 

With regard to foreclosure, unless the mortgagor can prove they have not sub-participated, is the first party of interest and can prove they actually loaned money to the mortgagee and not provided a credit facility only, then the mortgagor would have the right to foreclose. If not, then I very much doubt the mortgagor would be able to foreclose, regardless of LOPA, without their lack of candour becoming apparent.

[Peterbard]

I think that there is a degree of flexibility in pre contractual procedures, antecedent negotiations ,

t would have to be quite an error to enable the court to block a repossession which was due to arrears for instance. Although you are right in saying that the pre contractual rules are very intricate.

 

I struggle to see any connection with dunlop, though I know you are very fond of this case. It was about the damages due to a breach of contract, and if enforcment can still take place should they be in access of the liquidated damages(as per common law).

 

Mortgage arrears are matters of breach of the core term as I said before, these are not subject to the same rules as a contractual term, the sum due under the contract is what the contract is all about OB. Getting money back which is owed under a contract is not unjust enrichment of course. I am unsure what you mean in the nest paragraph,

if you are referring to sub charge as per the LRA 2002 then the main lender is quite within his right to do so it does not inhibit his rights in any way(subject to arrangements iht the other party), it is in the act, cant remember the section at the moment.

 

 

The rest i am afraid i do not know what you are on about frankly accept to say that the mortgagor is the one who is loaned money against the charge on property not the mortgagee.

[old bill]

In a number of cases, it is the mandatory checks lenders and their agents are supposed to conduct before arranging a mortgage that lands mortgagors in hot water.

 

In one case, Chancery ruled the mortgage was unenforceable and the repossession was unlawful, too, due to irregularities from the outset and through to repossession.

 

In fact, on hearing the Chancery ruling, the mortgagor and their estate agent could not remove the metal shutters and tear down the FOR SALE signs fast enough.

 

The mortgagor has been summoned before Chancery to explain their behaviour, but, as yet, has not responded. That was some months ago.

[Peterbard]

Sounds like an interesting case, i can quite believe it, do you have a link ?

[old bill]

I wish I could, DB, but the case is still live and waiting for the mortgagor to respond to Chancery's instruction. Quite a few of the cases I have dealt with involve irregularities from the outset. Obviously, once the case is concluded, then, more details can be given.

[Peterbard]

I understand, if you remember give me a nudge when you have it.

[Peterbard]

By the way OB i think you are still confusing mortgagor with mortgagee, it doesnt matter in the scheme of things

[old bill]

Would lender and borrower be easier?

[citizenB]

I am struggling to see what mortgages have got to do with Retail Loss Prevention ??

[old bill]

An unfortunate sidetrack, CB.

[citizenB]

 

 

I see

[mikeymack2002]

Looks like someone is out to cause confusion! As normal.

[Peterbard]

Yes that sillygirl is a proper trouble maker :wink

[ericsbrother]

looks like RLP have started a fight they can only lose

and then said bigger boys made them do it and run away

leaving the retailer to take all of the flak.

 

 

Looks like they are doing what Gladstones do in parking cases,

try and big themselves up by saying they can do this or that

and when their claim is defended they have no choice but to drop it in the lap of their "client"

who then bears all of the costs for something they may well have been reluctant to pursue

at the best of times,

let alone after someone else has forced them down a particular path.

[cjcregg]

It's difficult to understand how RLP ever thought that they had the standing to bring the claim in the first place as most of it (£6,200) is for the alleged 'theft' of takings from the retailer.

[silverfox1961]

It is quite possible that RLP are acting on behalf of the claimant as they do have an in house solicitor but obviously they cannot be the claimant and may have made an error with their filing.

 

IF This case is real (still no proof submitted) and based on the above comment by cjcregg, it looks like employee theft which is an entirely different ball game to shoplifting. In these cases there will be losses that can be recovered. No point going into it here until such time we know what is what.

[cjcregg]

Call me unconventional but somehow I don't feel obliged to 'submit proof' to anonymous souls on internet forums.

[silverfox1961]

With respect, it was you that raised the story in the first place and since then all we have seen is what you have posted.

You must know where this case is being discussed. otherwise you would not be aware of it.

 

Perhaps a screenshot of the place it is being discussed but obviously, if it is from another consumer forum, it would be better to PM screenshots to the site team.