Hep - Bradford & Bingley are after £68K for a £10K debt....

Sunk

If you pop down to your library & look through the archives at properties sold at that time you will see if your mums was properly marketed by an estate agent.
B&B should have got 2 valuations at the time, 1 should have been independent.
Building societies did not stick to the rules.
They will keep the pressure on your mum all the time she is paying, I have been there, she needs to be firm & when that final pmt of 5,000 was made & turned down, your mum should have stood her ground & basically said that's it, take me back to court because you are not getting another penny.
Halifax said if I paid them 5,000 as opposed to 30,000 it would be acceptable.

Worried_Son

Thanks for the latest suggestions, I've passed them onto my mum.

Latest news is that she has offered 25K to B&B (she was at the end of her teather and the solicitor was pressing her for a 4pm deadline). She is still doubtful they will accept that. If not, she will be going court as they can't really afford that offer and certainly not anymore.

Apparently the interest claim was dropped after the last case (my mistake), the solicitor got rid of that by arguing something called 'estoppel'????

The figure they're are after now is made up of my mum's half of £30K plus my stepdads half that was originally wiped under the bankruptcy. Apparently they can re-invoke that under some condition of a joint mortgage debt not being paid??? They are also adding on costs which will be huge as they are a big firm (Wragg & Co I think). My mum's solicitor has told her that, if they go back to court, hers will be in the region of 7-8K alone.

She has checked the house sale situation out and remembers seeing 2 independent estate agent valuations so I think she can't contest the house sale angle anymore.

Thanks again though folks.

blind-as-a-bat_2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Estoppel is a legal doctrine recognized both at common law and in equity in various forms. It is meant to complement the requirement of consideration in contract law. In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
Unconscionability by the defendant has been accepted as another element by courts in an attempt to unify the many individual rules of estoppel.

Estoppel is generally only a defense that prevents a representor from enforcing legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that enforcement or reliance would be unfair to the representee. Because its effect is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is often limited. Note, however, that proprietary estoppel (applicable in English land law) can be both a sword and a shield and the scope of its remedy is wide.

For an example of estoppel, consider the case of a debtor and a creditor. The creditor might unofficially inform the debtor that the debt has been forgiven. Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may be estopped from collecting the debt if the creditor changes its position later. It would be unfair to allow the creditor to change their mind in light of the unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. In the same way, a landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if there was construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this notice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting the full rent.

Estoppel is closely related to the doctrines of waiver, variation, and election and is applied in many areas of law, including insurance, banking, employment, international trade, etc. In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, although subtle but important differences exist.

This term appears to come from the French estoupail or a variation, which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede". Note the similarity between the English terms "estop" and "stop".

OR

Term: estoppel

1.

An estoppel is a legal principle to prevent or bar some action by party. Essentially there are two statements that present a contradiction and result is that the earlier is taken as the truth. Therefore, estoppel precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by his or her previous action or statement or by a previous judicial determination concerning that person.

There are a number of forms of estoppel in English law and they include Estoppel by Representation, Promissory Estoppel and estoppel by convention. In respect to res judicata, there are various forms: estoppel by judgment, estoppel per rem judicatam, and estoppel by merger.

Usage: The claim that the defendant that the claimant would not enforce the contract amounted to an estoppel by the claimant, as the defendant had relied on the statement and changed their position.


Related Words: proprietary estoppel; contract; res judicata; promissory estoppel; autrefois convict; autrefois acquit

I think the last bit is what did it:D

Good luck, you are being more than reasonable, that will, or should help if it goes back to court, so dont give up hope if they refuse, the judge may penalise them for not being reasonable