my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

[honeybee13]

I think you know more about this than I do as you found help before. I would be looking at websites for pro bond and law colleges that can offer advice. 

Can the trust pay for legal advice to the trustees?

HB

[HP Mum]

Thanks HB

The Trust has no £s, just the asset.  Personally I am unable to loan £s.   Unfortunately the system works against freeholders. 

The majority of the time it is leaseholders that have issues with ruthless and rich freeholders and so all the charities and pro-bonos are geared up to assist leaseholders, not freeholders.  Its quite annoying in this set of circumstances.  We have a specific 'thing' we want to action but definitely need counsel input first

Another question I want to ask re the other party involved in the lease extension. 

 This other freeholder's lawyers never once tried to discuss the apportionment that was due to their client for the new lease with the main freeholders.  Not once in 3y.  I raised this issue with them and asked them to agree the figure immediately.  Weeks later and they still hadn't.  I applied to the court to grant an order that they do it. 

The point is

- these lawyers were given an incorrect new lease by the leaseholder and they got their client to sign it. But it does not comply with the terms of the consent order and they have not yet agreed the financial apportionment.   

Would this void their signature?

[HP Mum]

I have a t&cs query. As in - I was never sent them so can they be binding on me?

I am in the midst of lengthy property litigation.  One of the points the Claimant makes is that their "General t&cs" includes a "no-set-off" clause.  They state that what ever counterclaim I have is irrelevant because this clause prevents me trying to off-set £s against their claim. They have included pages and pages of their "General t&cs" in a large appendix in their pleadings - which I had never before seen. Within the pages there is this "no-set-off" clause.. 

I am a litigant in person, with occasional free legal help.   Going through their pleadings I realised the appendix and their "General t&cs" and its no-set-off clause had never been pleaded by the Claimant before last Autumn 23.  The last pro-bono counsel I briefly used did not question it either.   So I've checked all the original loan documentation and emails/ letters sent by them to me and my lawyers at the time (8y ago).   I've discovered that they never sent and thus I had never received the lender's "General t&cs".    The Lender sent a "Conditional Mortgage Offer" and a "Binding Loan Offer" - both of which contained a long list of t&cs specific to my loan - BUT did not include a "no-set-off" clause.   100% the Lender or their Lawyers never sent or included their "General t&cs" in any communication   However, one page in the Conditional Mortgage Offer refers to the "General t&cs". It contains the following:

I/we agree to the t&cs as set out in this Conditional Mortgage Offer document and the included General Mortgage Terms and associated Tariff of Charges

I/ we understand that the conditions will not become binding on use until the Mortgage Offer conditions have been met and the the Lender has issued the Binding Offer Letter and I/we have communicated our acceptance of this to the Lender

The Lender is not bound by the t&cs of this Conditional Mortgage Offer until such time as I/we have satisfied to the Lender's express satisfaction, the Mortgage Conditions, as set out in this document, and the Lender has issued its Binding Offer Letter.  There is no obligation on the Lender to fund the mortgage application under the terms set out until the Binding Offer Letter is issued.  The Lender can at its discretion, withdraw this Conditional Mortgage Offer at any time before issue of a Binding Offer Letter

I/we confirm that I/we have received legal advice regarding the t&cs of this mortgage offer document, its attending General T&Cs and Tariff of Charges

What does "attending General T&Cs mean?

The Lender sent me the conditional offer, the binding offer and the Legal Charge - none of which included this "no-set-off" clause.  They also sent me the Tariff of Charges together with a welcome letter.  But they never sent me the "General t&cs" - despite them being referred to in bold as above.

Throughout the litigation the Lender has sneakily tried to circumvent the law.  Are they trying to introduce something into proceedings hoping I wouldn't notice they don't apply because they never included them?  Or can they refer to this clause?

 

[dx100uk]

is the related to one of your running threads...

dx

 

[HP Mum]

hello dx.  Yes it relates to the ridiculously long and convoluted thread (that is currently closed/ locked) about my various lender issues  and lease/freehold.  Same lender.  Just a different query

[dx100uk]

ok unlocked and merged

you can always report the last post in a locked thread for it to be opened up.

 

 

[HP Mum]

OK thanks dx

[HP Mum]

Hi

Am just re-visiting a point I raised 5y ago (mentioned in this thread on page 4) - at the beginning of what has become the most convoluted litigation since Dicken's Jarndyce & Jarndyce.

I have been veritably screwed by everyone in the last 5y.  But I haven't given up trying to get restitution where I legally can.

Today's point refers to the broker who was asked to find a lender for my property in spring 16.

The broker found a high street bank offering 2.49%/annual interest on a BTL loan in May 16.  But the bank then raised issues about the property valuation and my affordability.  Despite having a tenant in situ (for 4 months) paying enough rent to cover the annual loan.

The broker then found a different lender (aka shark) - which organized a different valuer on their panel who valued it much higher than the high street bank - and which was offering 1%/ month interest on a bridge loan in Nov 16.

If the broker alleged affordability issues at 2.49% - why did they place me with a lender at 12% ? 

Yes I know I signed the docs and went ahead - but there seemed to be mitigating circumstances compelling me to sign. The prime one being that my lender at the time was threatening repossession.  Of course, fast forward 2y and the new bridge lender repossessed anyway.  Whilst in the meantime the broker had taken 1.5% fee for the bridge rather than 1% fee for the BTL.   And when the property was marketed post-repo it was put up for sale at the lower BTL lender valuation.  In other words I was set up to fail.

My main question regarding this is - Can I re-visit making a claim again the broker?   It's 5y since I discovered the broker never did a fact find or suitability check.  So it's under the SB 6y.  I sent a SAR in Mar 19 and they admitted their mistakes - but then tried to say they consider the matter closed unless I want to take it to LO.  I was super stressed with so much legal stuff going on over the years that I just pushed to one side any thought of making a challenge against the broker via the LO or FCA.

Fast forward another 5y and the property remains unsold.  I'm still embroiled in legal battles with the shark lender (about how/why it's not sold) and heading to trial. But as its recently been adjourned I am wondering if now is the time to tackle the broker again?  Try to get some kind of restitution?

The broker was a renowned professional (spf) and with all their resources should have been able to source another BTL at a low % rate.

Any thoughts on this?  Or dead duck?

 

 

[HP Mum]

Also - is it possible to launch simultaneous claims -v- different 3rd parties?

I mean I'm a) asking about can I make a claim against the broker who should never have placed me with the shark.  But b) can I also simultaneously make a claim against a lawyer for negligence in the litigation process v the shark ? (By claim -v- lawyer I really mean that I intend to complain to the SRA about breach of their principles and ask for their help in getting compensation for him totally screwing up my case)

[HP Mum]

This is the 1st post I made about the broker in March 19:

Borrower sends in a SAR to broker. 
* Turns out the broker did not act correctly. 
* They did no fact find;
* have no Suitability letter;
* they did not fill out an income and affordability form,
* they filled in the application form on behalf of the borrower
* they just emailed the signature page for borrower to sign
* so borrower had no sight of what the application form contained;
* the broker did the same for the Terms
* just sent the signature page for borrower to sign. 
* The broker did all this on an "Advised" basis.

[honeybee13]

Who was the broker regulated by at the time you took out the loan and did you complain to them?

What does Advised Basis mean?

HB

[HP Mum]

"broker = spf"

Assume regulated by FCA?

I've been told that "on an advised basis" means they are liable. But I'm not a broker or expert.  I think it means they are professional brokers and under their professional hat they advised a client - but didn't follow protocol

I complained to broker.

They admitted they didn't do due diligence.

But said it was up to me to follow up with the authorities. 

I was inundated with legal stuff for last 5y.

And wasn't sure about how or if I could pursue them or if that may have affected my legal path. 

Im just re-looking at the injustice of it all.

And wondering if I can pursue them now - within the 6y of being told what they did was wrong

[honeybee13]

What is spf please?

HB

[HP Mum]

I was trying to be discreet !! But to heck with that now: Savills Private Finance

[dx100uk]

Savills really.. im surprised.

yes go for it.

as they've admitted liability.

trouble is they might pull the 3yrs rule

you have reasonably known you could have taken action but didn't.

 

dx

 

[HP Mum]

What's the 3y rule?

In terms of taking action and not doing so - is there a simple "I'm ignorant layperson" response?

What could I possibly do now? next ?

[dx100uk]

Consumers have six years from the event of the complaint to submit a claim to the FOS. If later, they have three years from when they knew or ought to have reasonably known they had cause to complain.

[HP Mum]

So - do you mean 6y from when they organised the loan? Because that's more than 7y. 

Or is it 6y from when I was advised what they'd (most likely) done wrong?  Because that's under 6y

Or is it 3y from when I was advised what they'd (most likely) done wrong? Because the 3y expired start 22.

I seriously wasn't happy but I didn't know they'd done anything seriously wrong/ unethical until a friend - who is a broker - had a look at all the papers in March 19. He then said I should send them a SAR. Which I did.  Which is when/where they admitted some of the things they did wrong.

If I can "do something" - what actually do I do?  What would a "claim" to the FOS look like? 

[dx100uk]

your 1st port of call is to complain to savills then issue a letter of claim, then onto a court claim..

HOWEVER, going by the FOS guidelines, 3yrs from when you realised you could 'complain', IMHO it would be thrown out.

i don't doubt for one minute you are owed money, but i can see straight off that as soon as you raise a complaint, savills with buff you off quoting the 3yrs mate  to late. for the price of a 2nd class stamp it can't hurt.

 

[HP Mum]

I need to keep this simple. To keep stress levels down. I'm still embroiled in other legal stuff.

 I seem to remember the friend broker saying I shouldnt have to issue a court claim - he thought I could lodge a claim to the Ombudsman?  Is that a possible route?  Without going down a possible 2y legal claim path

In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark.

In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19.

But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later.

A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself. 

Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded)

Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too)

I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks.

And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y.

I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??

 

[aesmith]

9 hours ago, dx100uk said:

Consumers have six years from the event of the complaint to submit a claim to the FOS. ..

Does a BTL loan come under consumer law, or is it considered business? Once the mortgage is in place it doesn't have the protection that a residential mortgage does.

[honeybee13]

8 hours ago, HP Mum said:

I need to keep this simple. To keep stress levels down. I'm still embroiled in other legal stuff.

 I seem to remember the friend broker saying I shouldnt have to issue a court claim - he thought I could lodge a claim to the Ombudsman?  Is that a possible route?  Without going down a possible 2y legal claim path

You would need to take into account what aesmith just said but I would have thought you could go to the ombudsman, assuming Savills were regulated by the FCA at the time. From memory, the ombudsman won't take a case that's already gone to court.

HB

[aesmith]

14 hours ago, HP Mum said:

The broker found a high street bank offering 2.49%/annual interest on a BTL loan in May 16.  But the bank then raised issues about the property valuation and my affordability.  

The broker then found a different lender (aka shark)

If the broker alleged affordability issues at 2.49% - why did they place me with a lender at 12% ? 

I read that as the first bank would not make the loan on various grounds. The bank rather than the broker was worried about affordability. The broker then found an alternative lender, maybe under those circumstances it's not surprising the rate was higher. 

Although 12% is high, my amateur opinion is it would be tough to claim they were culpable for offering it.  

[HP Mum]

Aesmith - wanted a btl was placed with a bridge. 

The broker did no affordability check, no fact find, no income check, they filled in all the forms - just sent the signature page to sign.

The question was/ is - with a high-paying short-term tenant in situ and a history of other high rentals should they have been able to secure a replacement btl? 

I'd had a btl for donkeys. 

The valuations were way off for the bridge. 

As was discovered down the line.

HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution. 

They all stem really from bad advice by broker. 

[honeybee13]

HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution.  They all stem really from bad advice by broker. 

Indeed, but if the Ombudsman is prepared to accept the complaint, it would be about the advice given by the broker and their paperwork, wouldn't it? You seem to be asserting that the problems you've had stem from their bad advice.

HB