Nemo Suspended Possession Order

[im4347]

Thanks Andy and Ellen

 

We have incorporated your points, not too sure if this looks correct and in the correct format, i will need to email it to court tonight as we will be away tomorrow:

 

We do not accept the level of costs of applying to court that have been incurred by the Claimant for the following reasons and therefore raise the following points of dispute.

 

1) We have always fully engaged with the Claimant and have been consistently making payments towards the arrears for some considerable time without issue and reducing the arrears by almost £2,500. However, on 1st April 2016 we were one day late with the payment and contacted the Claimant to explain. The Claimant re-arranged the payment date to 5th April 2016 and also confirmed this in a letter dated 1st April 2016 (see attached Exhibit 1), but when we rang to make the payment on 5th April 2016 we were informed that the Claimant management had over-ruled the payment arrangement intended to issue re-possession proceedings.

 

2) Despite making the payment on 5th April 2016 as arranged and despite the arrangement being up to date and not in any further arrears the Claimant still continued to issue the Letter Before Action immediately on 6th April 2016 (see attached Exhibit 2).

 

3) The Claimant continued to instruct Solicitors 29th April 2016 again during the payments being up to date and not in any further arrears (see attached Exhibit 3).

 

4) If for some unseen circumstance or event where our payments have been delayed, we have always informed the Claimant and rearranged a date and made a card payment on the date arranged to make that payment up.

 

5) The Claimant still pursued with the proceedings on 4th May despite us trying to negotiate and stop the proceedings.

 

6) We came to an arrangement with the Claimant prior to the Court hearing 2nd June 2016 and requested to save on costs and avoid the court attendance. The Claimant disagreed saying that it was cheaper for the agent to attend than to cancel the hearing.

7) A requirement was introduced to the CPR in 1998 that costs must be proportionate to the matters in issue. Proportionality is not simply an exercise in comparing the bill with the sum at stake. In considering the issue of proportionality, we request the court have regards to CPR rule 1.1 where proportionality refers to: (a) the amount of money involved; (b) the importance of the case; © the complexity of the issues; and (d) the financial position of each party and also that the overriding objective should be observed (not to apply further undue debt to your financial position)

 

 

8) Counsel must be able to justify the proportionality of the bill. Since the decision in Home Office v Lownds {[2002] EWCA Civ 365}, we request the Court to see whether the bill looks disproportionate. If it is, then the Claimant will only receive payment for work that is necessary and reasonable in amount.

 

We request the court to use its discretion in consideration of all the above points on consideration of such costs. We request the court to consider the overall attitude/behaviour of the Claimants Solicitor in applying such costs with the full knowledge that we were complying with their clients’ requests.

 

Many thanks

IM

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Just a slight tweak to your opening im...dont forget to add the court header...Claimant v Defendant Case No Court etc etc. and finish with a statement of truth.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[im4347]

Thanks Andy

 

I have made the changes, i will be emailing the court shortly.

 

Many thanks

 

IM

[im4347]

Hi

 

The costs hearing is on Monday 12th Sept, we have been trying to negotiate the costs since with them so that we could cancel the hearing as suggested by the Judge, but have had no joy.

 

They responded to our statement as follows:

 

I-3 points were general info.

 

4. The legal cost in relation to this matter together with that of disbursements are as follows:

- Solicitors costs for dealing with the possession application = £288

- Agents fee for attending = £90

- Court application fee = £355

- Land Registry Doc Fee = £9

Total = £742.00

 

5. ......It will be noted that from the inception of the loan there were many missed and late payments. ...... (Not true, see answer to point 8)

 

6. The arrangement that the defendants indicated in Para 1 of their statement was that payment should have been made on 31st March, they eventually paid 5th April 2016. The defendant had clearly been told on 8th August 2015 that any late or missed payments will result in proceedings being issued. The claimant gave a considerable period of time before making such an application to the court. The decision was made to commencement court proceedings on 10th March 2016 and the arrangement that the defendants indicate in their statement was their last chance to maintain an arrangement outside of the court. (payment for the 5th April was made with the arrangement with the Claimant which they later withdrew after the payment was received as arranged on 5th April.)

 

7. The defendants make mention in Para 4 an unforeseen circumstance but this is a Bank Holiday which they would have been fully aware of. (Hence why monies in the account took time to clear but the Claimant was made aware this hence the Payment arrangement on the 1st April for the 5th April which was maintained by us.)

 

8. The defendants had been given extensive leeway by the Claimants and it was clearly indicated to them that this was their last chance to bring the account up to date. When they did not do so and there was 30 missed payments outstanding the claimant was more than entitled to issue proceedings. (these are not 30 missed payments but reduced payments during the period we were made redundant but still showed commitment by an agreed payment plan)

 

9. It is clear from the T&Cs of the loan agreement, in particular Clause 6.2 that the defendants are to indemnity the claimant against all reasonable legal and other costs incurred by them in attempting to obtain repayment of any unpaid monthly payment or of such balance and interest. (Clause 6.2 - You shall indemnify us against all reasonable legal and other costs and expenses incurred by us in attempting to obtain repayment of the unpaid monthly payment or of such balance and interest, interest on the amount which becomes due and payable and on any costs and expenses which become payable shall be charged in accordance with Clause at the rate specified overleaf subject to variation as set out above until payment both after as well as before judgement.)

10. It is agreed that an arrangement with the claimant had been made prior to the court hearing on 2nd June 2016 although, with the new fee scale for the court, it is cheaper by £10 to send an agent to the court than make a consent application. The Claimants were therefore ensuring that the costs were minimalised.

 

11. With such arrears the Claimant had no other option but to commence court proceedings......... It is submitted that these are clearly proportionate to the work undertaken and it was necessary for there to be an application in this instance and it is submitted that the costs should be borne by the defendants not only due to proportionality but due to the contractual nature of their loan agreement. (The payment arrangement for the arrears was up to date before the proceedings were commenced.)

 

Is there anything that i should file before the hearing in relation to the above reply from the Claimant and the fact that we have tried to negotiate the costs but the Claimant is not interested.

 

Any help and advice would be highly appreciated.

 

Regards

IM

[AndyOrch]

Hi im

 

Do you know if costs claimed are on the standard basis....just wondering as there is a hearing whether they will be by detailed assessment ?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[im4347]

Hi Andy

 

Thanks for getting back to me, appreciate it.

 

It's only a 30mins hearing, as the judge during the SPO hearing didn't want to do the costs. The CAB officer with us at the time was very surprised by this as she said it is normally dealt with at the same time. So I think it's on the standard basis.

 

Regards,

IM

[AndyOrch]

Costs in mortgage Repossession Cases

 

In most types of legal case a court order is required to enable a party to recover their costs from the other side. The procedure for mortgageicon repossession cases is different. There is a presumption that the mortgage lender was entitled to bring the case and, therefore, may recover the legal costs of doing so.

In most mortgage repossession cases the judge says nothing about costs when making an order. If nothing is said about costs it means that the mortgage lender is entitled to recover them from the borrower. However, it is unlikely that a borrower will receive a bill for these costs – they are usually added to the total amount outstanding under the mortgage.

 

The Terms and Conditions of a Mortgage and Costs

 

The terms and conditions for a mortgage should include a clause dealing with the costs of any legal action. This may contain words to the effect that the mortgage lender is entitled to recover all reasonable legal costs incurred as a result of the borrower breaching their obligations under the mortgage agreement. This means that a lender is entitled to the costs of bringing a repossession case due to the borrower’s failure to pay the instalments due under the mortgage.

[im4347]

Hi

 

We had a previous thread, please see below regarding the Suspended Possession Order.

 

We have a secured loan with Nemo Finance which has a Suspended Possession Order since 2016 and since the pandemic we were making reduced monthly payments which were all agreed by Nemo.

 

They wanted us to increase the amount and went through an income and expenditure, we explained that we can further increase the amount we were paying for a few more months before we can revert back to paying the full monthly amount set in the court order.   They went away to approve it from a manager and was supposed to call us back with whether they were wiling to accept it or not so that we had the option of how to move forward.

 

The manager refused the offer but instead of contacting us first they went and instructed the solicitors and then called us to tell us their decision.  We spoke to them and said that they were supposed to contact us first as we had planned to get help from the family if Nemo rejected the offer.  They apologised profusely and said they would put a stop to the Possession Order as they agreed for us paying the full monthly amount as set in the order.

 

Recently we have received letters from the court and their solicitors stating the "the Claimant is granted permission to enforce the Possession Order in accordance with CPR83.2 (3) and the Possession Order to remain enforceable for 6 years without the need for the Claimant to seek further permission from the court."

 

We have already made a payment towards the plan that was agreed which is the full requested monthly amount as per the order, so how can this be possible? 

 

We would really appreciate any advice on how best to sort this out as the Suspended Order shouldn't have been lifted or changed.

 

Thanks

IM4347

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

numerous previous threads merged for complete history

 

dx

 

[im4347]

Thanks DX