my Leasehold/Freehold property and its issues.

[honeybee13]

I'm sorry to ask this again. Are you asking for your own data or would the details you want include someone else's data?

 

HB

[HP Mum]

Just mine

 

Just to clarify - yes the sar was only with regards to my own data. 

The personal data held by them in full relates to brokers in setting up finance, the duration of the loan, subsequent legal action, receivers, valuers, agents, potential buyers, dubious pi work, attempted court action behind my back...

 

The have disclosed some paperwork relating to initial arranging of the finance and some paperwork relating to the receivers - but nothing else.  No transcripts of calls, no emails, no financial statements, no interest, no breakdown of extra costs, no info about pi or legal action, no details on any offers in last 7 months etc.   

 

I sent the sar many many weeks ago. I received the tiny amount of data.  I sent a reminder that I want all the data they hold and helpfully highlighted the specific areas to assist them.  All they have sent is a simple letter stating who they give my data to, rather than any of the actual data.

Pretty obvious they are hiding stuff.  And trying to annoy me.  Rogues.

 

I have had a read of the ico site.

Its quite clear I have a valid complaint.

But what can the ico actually do?  Especially in this  current climate.

I just want sight of all the data they hold on me.

 

Is there an alternative - like sending in sar to 3rd parties/ others: receiver, agents, brokers, lawyers?  So I try and get the same info from different angles?

 

I've clearly discovered they did quite a lot behind my back - and started a legal process through the courts  - yet they still haven't disclosed any of it in their response to my sar data request.  Surely that won't look good with any judge if they ever get their case to court?

 

I spoke to the ico.

I can file my complaint, a case officer can assess if bank complied, if no valid exemptions the ico can ask bank to provide data. Ico can fine bank - But ico can't force bank to comply with sending data.

If bank don't send data then ico suggests taking independent legal action.....

 

My own assessment of this situation is that this is a long process, potentially costly, which still doesn't get the requested personal data.

So what to do?

[unclebulgaria67]

If you did nothing, what are the possible consequences ?

 

They have tried a sneaky bankruptcy, but that was stopped by a Court,  as they could not prove service.  Have they gone back to the Court where they made the application ? Might it be worth checking with the Court ?

 

What other options do the Bank have to progress this ?

[HP Mum]

I have personal financial problems.

Completely separately I am one of some Trustees appointed for a Trust - to protect Trust assets for beneficiaries.  I am not a beneficiary.   

Lawyers are instructed by the Trustees to work on behalf of the Trust - when required.

These Trust lawyers received a lawyer letter asking if they are instructed for me.   They are not.  These lawyers are only instructed re the Trust.

 

The Trust lawyers have asked me for my further instructions...

They know they are only instructed by Trustees for the Trust.  So I am confused why they'd even ask for my further instructions?

 

Do the Trust lawyers have to 'ignore' the other lawyer letter - because they have no instruction to act on my personal behalf at all?  (ie they can not legally reply)

Or do the Trust/Trustee lawyers legally have to reply to a lawyer letter - and clarify NO? 

 

As Trustees we are obliged to account for all Trust expenses. 

Every legal email sent/ received is billable.

If the Trust lawyers write a letter - that is billable.

The Trust should not be held financially liable for emails/letters to/from Trust lawyers  to clarify they are not instructed by someone else (me).    

And as I am not a  client the Trust lawyers can't bill me personally.

Is it best for me as Trustee to ignore both lawyers?

Or should I just simply email and reiterate to Trust lawyers that they are fully aware the instruction is only Trustees obo the Trust?

 

I guess this other lawyer wants to physically serve papers on me personally.  As I am of nfa they can't.  The person/ company they rep know my contact details and a valid mailing address - but not where i reside.  Hence trying to use the Trust lawyers as a means to serve on me personally.

 

Any thoughts on what should do?

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by HP Mum

[Manxman in exile]

I am not a lawyer - so don't listen to me!

 

However, it does seem a little odd to me also that the trustees' solicitors should ask you (in a personal capacity?) for instructions as to how to reply to the other firm's letter if they (the trustee's solicitors) know that they don't represent you personally, but only in your capacity as a trustee.

 

I think I'd be inclined to suggest to the trustee's solicitors that they respond as they see fit, but emphasising that they do not in any way either take instructions from you or represent you in a personal capacity.  But point out that you can't tell them how to reply, as you are not personally instructing them. 

 

I assume this is connected to your other "harassing a relative" thread?

 

Could your financial problems detrimentally affect your role as a trustee?

 

Ooopps!  Just realised cross-posted!

Edited May 18, 2020 by Manxman in exile

[AndyOrch]

Topics merged...please do not start numerous new topics on the same issue......gets confusing and repetitive. 

[HP Mum]

Thanks Andy. Sorry - I started it as a separate issue because of it being re the Trust entity not personal capacity - even though the people trying to find me relate to this thread above

 

Manxman - I think the same as you. But I was wondering if there's some loop hole I don't know about

[Manxman in exile]

Dunno if there's a loophole or not re serving papers on you.

 

Re your capacity as a trustee, could your other problems impact on that?

[HP Mum]

Manxman - no. 

[unclebulgaria67]

Write back saying. I have no understanding of what your letter concerns. Please write to me again in plain English and without any legal jargon or terms.   If you can explain clearly what you asking of me and explain why you asking, then I can look into responding.

[BazzaS]

If you are of nfa such that the ‘other’ solicitors can’t serve papers on you, how can the solicitors (acting for the Trustees’) send you letters?

 

If you can’t be served by one, logically you can’t then receive letters (and respond to them) from the other : beware a pitfall .....

 

You may wish to consider that before responding: you don’t want to create a paper trail that demonstrates you can be served but are just picking and choosing which letters you will accept and which you’ll dodge ......

Edited May 18, 2020 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

Thanks Bazza.

Yes. I'm aware of what you wrote.

 

The issue is the Trustees appointed lawyers ages ago when I had an address.  Correspondence subsequently is email.

Mail has been on divert from old address to a mailbox so I could receive post. The other people also know that.

Can their lawyers serve papers on me c/o a mailbox? Thought has to be physically in hand? 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by HP Mum

[unclebulgaria67]

There are alternative service options, where they cannot personally serve demands using a process server. Just takes longer, as they have to follow a process of attempting to make contact.

 

 

[HP Mum]

What kind of alternative service options are there?

 

And what would qualify as attempting to make contact?  If they never asked me directly?

 

So far they created a song and dance at a relative's address and now trying to communicate with a lawyer they know isn't instructed.

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Read the link below. I think they will make a record of several ways they have attempted contact and in the end I think they can post up notices in London Gazette, plus local newspapers seeking for you to respond.  I believe this final last ditch attempt to make contact, enables them to try to go for bankruptcy in your absence.  But this is not my area of knowledge and I am going by what I have read previously that when personal service is not possible and alternative service is difficult, because a person is moving around, hiding, not responding etc, they have to document every attempt and in the end they can look to make someone bankrupt in their absence. 

 

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/technicalmanual/Ch37-48/chapter45/part10/part_10.htm

[HP Mum]

I sent a SAR to them. 

They didn't comply.

Emailed reminders asking for full disclosure. 

 

They knew they could send all data to a mail address or email - as I had no permanent home. 

They emailed a few docs but basically nothing, certainly nothing really relevant. 

They didn't disclose anything to do with my property: no offers received, no up-to-date interest accrued, no expenses incurred. 

They didn't/ don't want me to know what they've been up to.   

 

What info they did send contained inaccuracies. 

There was zero mention of anything to do with actions of trying to serve a sd or B petition. 

I made ico complaint but nothing will be done for 3months.

Re what you mention above - the company recently emailed suggesting a "chat". 

Now their lawyer is contacting an incorrect lawyer. 

Yet they've avoided sending me crucial info to a known mailing address or email.

 

Just re-reading emails/ checking details.

I do not trust these people. They're hiding actions by not sending any docs/ info in response to the SAR.

 

Lawyers been reminded they are only instructed by and for the Trust not any individual.   

However, the email they recently forwarded from these people had a subject heading with some kind of ref number.

Going over things I now see this number relates to old sd.

 

Just to briefly re-provide the thread history here:

They'd used an incorrect address to try serve sd (knew I did not reside at that address). 

There was no response to the sd obviously, as I was unaware of it in time.

Gazette records show no ad in my name, ever. 

However, they still presented a B petition to a random court as if the sd had been served. 

 

I only found this out by chance - ie when forwarded (random) court letter stating the B process was halted for several months (lockdown stoppage).  I assumed at the time it was because they hadn't proved service of the sd or b petition. 

 

The sd - without proof of service - also should have expired after 4 months. 

I didn't think they could resurrect  an expired sd?  But the court letter advising 'halt' did not state the sd had expired or case thrown out...  So I am wondering if the old sd didn't expire - because they got it (via 'assumed substituted service' ??) to the b petition process first?

 

The letter wording was

a) the case is removed from scheduled date and time on the court list forthwith

b) the case will be re-listed on the 1st open date after x few months, a date to be advised

c) the time estimate will be unchanged

d) if the issue is resolved in the interim parties are requested to confirm the agreement reached, the judge may consider this information and if all agree, issue the consent order, a draft of which is required from any party legally represented

e) any party objecting to this order must lodge an application to vary setting out the reasons why, what alternative is contended for and must send a copy to every party at the same time as to the court.

 

Can they resurrect the 1st sd as it is in the b process in the random court? 

has it expired through non-service?

do they need to try serve a new 2nd sd? 

is this why they ask if the trust lawyer is repping me? 

So they could serve old or new sd? 

Can they enforce a b process - behind my back - in the current closed environment? 

 I am concerned that I am suddenly going to be presented with a 'you have been made b'.

 

The papers I eventually had sight of revealed they claimed the £s owed were not secured. 

They were/ are. 

Against property.   

Which is unsold. 

 

They marketed it at a very low price in hope of a quick sale but the market has been stagnant. 

Interest continued to accrue. 

So now it appears there is a shortfall. 

 

Their claim reveals they want to make me b and retain the property on the basis the loan is unpaid. 

Then, I guess, they  don't legally have to  answer to me what they are doing with the property? 

They keep it on books until market improves and they then sell it at a price which would have prevented making me b...

 

I don't have a lawyer.

Should I re-send in a request (sar) for all info. 

To protect my position? 

ie I am asking for them to keep me informed - and they don't...

I feel very vulnerable and intimidated

[unclebulgaria67]

Think you had better stay on top of this and contact the Court regularly to check to see whether anything has happened.

 

 

 

 

[HP Mum]

Thanks Uncle B

If I havent been served or officially seen sd or b petition wouldn't calling the random court be deemed an admission?

Or could I use this as an opportunity to get the case thrown out for not being officially served?  No proof of service and the 4 months allowed for a sd has long expired?

 

It just seems from the wording of the court letter (above) that the substituted service of the sd was allowed and there is a b petition in the system that has been adjourned due to lockdown, rather than thrown out?  And that in a few months time it will be resurrected?

 

I can definitely prove that I was in communication with them and they knew how to contact me - i wasn't being evasive; they never asked me where I was. It seems they wanted to sneak this through behind the scenes - get a b without any contention.

 

I have tried reading case law on this.  That i should question the lack of proof of sd service and lack of physical service of b petition before the court hearing is heard??

 

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/03/11/bankruptcy-petition-not-served-properly-bankruptcy-not-annulled/

 

This seems to show that the claimant must prove the b petition has physically been served - which they didn't and cant. 

 

This also seems to imply that a b order may not be annulled unless the issues on correct service are sorted early enough in the court process...??

 

It would be good to get the b petition thrown out the system.

 

[unclebulgaria67]

If they make you bankrupt, trying to annul this later  due to service issues is going to be difficult.

 

If you found out they had started the bankruptcy process, the court had accepted substituted service, then it is only the Courts system not fully functioning that is preventing this process moving forward.  

 

If you contact the Courts and find out the current situation, I think this will help you. How are you going to deal with this otherwise ?

 

 

 

 

[HP Mum]

Thanks uncleB.

 

Now I am fully looking at this and reading case law - I can see that the court must have accepted substituted service of the sd.  Wrongly.   It's the only explanation as to there being a b petition in the court system with a set hearing date - which fortunately got postponed due to lockdown.  Perhaps there's also an element of - now they need to physically serve the b petition - off the back of the incorrect sd?  That's why they asked if trust lawyers are personally instructed too. 

 

All of this subterfuge!

Their actions make sense now. 

 

They went quiet on me for months - no emails/ calls.  Whilst simultaneously pretending to try find me at a random relative location.  They pretended they didn't know how to find me.  Whilst knowing my email and # and fully able to ask. 

 

Meanwhile I threw spanner in the works by sending in a sar.  This fully told them how to contact me/ where to send mail and also put them to the task of revealing all data and what they'd been up to.  They did not comply with the sar - sent no details of accrued interest or value of offers on property.  There was no mention of trying to find me at relative's house.

 

Although within the sar data they did send - they enclosed a valuation of relative's property!!  They didn't disclose they started a legal process against me.  I chased - again very specifically asking what type of info I wanted them to disclose - and they refused to send data.  This is sure proof of deliberately withholding information, not giving me a fair and just chance of defence.

 

So - given the court letter (as above) says the b petition is withdrawn from court list for another couple months minimum due to lockdown, it seems I have time to sort out.

As of today I now realise I should contest the service of the substituted sd.   

Any ideas on how best to tackle this?

 

[BazzaS]

You might delay the outcome, but unless you can show you don’t owe them money, or can repay what you owe - are you merely delaying the inevitable?

 

What is your desired endpoint here?

 

 

[HP Mum]

Thanks bazza

Well.... There are several elements - how much is the alleged debt?  Their fraudulent behaviour? Etc etc. I could well have a legal case against them?  (They are currently in news involving a huge value fraud case)

 

Plus there's an element of if the property is sold, leaving a shortfall, before any b hearing and I have no asset, no income, no likelihood of ever repaying, no other creditors chasing me, and the b is of no actual benefit to these people/company

 

- it is simply a harsh punishment with a lifechanging/damaging stigma attached - then a judge may consider me too broke to be b!  Insolvency Act '86 s266 (3) ??  I've seen case law on this outcome - albeit rare. Lock v Aylesbury Vale Council ('18)

 

 

I need to collate all my evidence against these horrid people. 

I have to now assume they were awarded substituted service of the sd - so I need to figure the correct legal way to get this sd thrown out.  This prevents the b petition/ b hearing. 

 

They'd have to start the whole process again.  If they do, I will be prepared to defend this time round.  Not just with paperwork in order, but mentally too. 

 

It's hard to articulate how debilitating the last year+ has been.  It has been awful. 

I don't know how I have managed. 

 

If I hadn't had the support of a couple friends providing temp roofs over heads (me/kids) then I don't know how I'd have got through it all. 

 

The best way to describe it is like being mentally curled up in a ball for the last year+.

Occasionally normal personality surfacing; occasionally moping; otherwise trying to slowly just make sense of the complete volte-face of our lives. 

I kind of feel I've been in lockdown for a year! 

I guess its what people call the 5 stages of grief...

Edited May 22, 2020 by HP Mum

[BazzaS]

Lock v Aylesbury Vale Council ;

Unlikely to help you.

 

A) It places the higher standard on public bodies (such as councils), though can apply to private creditors.

B) It is for where there are no assets to realise via a Trustee in Bankruptcy. In your case there is an asset (they’ll no doubt argue) with the leasehold. This is where any efforts by you (see this & previous threads) about the freehold may work against you...

 

expect them to say a bankruptcy is indicated to allow examination of your assets. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

Thanks bazza - I do not have any asset. The sole asset was/is the lease.  I'm saying if that gets sold then there will categorically be zero assets.

The fh is not mine/ never will be/ I can't ever benefit. Making me b will not give them a penny. Not even cover a single step of the OR to evaluate.  I have no savings, no income, can't afford a rental - until I am fit for work (and no lockdown) I have been surviving off other's kindness

Edited May 22, 2020 by HP Mum

[unclebulgaria67]

Did you mention that your family own the freehold ?

 

If so, is the bankruptcy a tactical move ?