Liberty to restore?

Dumbledore55

Hi

My friend was about to be taken to court to have her house repossessed. After constant nagging from me to tell her family the trouble she was in, she has done so and her parents have paid off the debt for her.

She has now had a letter asking her to consent to an adjournment of the case with 'liberty to restore' - what does that mean?

I'm assuming it means that if she falls in arrears again they can take her to court pretty damn quickly but I'd like to be sure as she has to complete this form and get it to the court by 3rd January.

Can she refuse to consent and if so what could be the consequences bearing in mind she now no longer owes them any money?

Thanks

Kevicho

I tried googling for "liberty to restore" and could find next to nothing, looks like you are right, they may pick up proceedings at the drop of a hat if she falls into arrears again.

I wouldnt ignore court summons, as useless and corrupt the law is in the UK, i would say it best to follow it on this occasion, id send her to the CAB for professional advice

Dumbledore55

Thanks - I couldn't work it out from Googling either. I've advised CAB. She's not going to ignore the letter but is considering crossing out the words 'liberty to restore' on her reply and just consent to the adjournment.

I suppose the main thing is for her not to get in arrears again and then they can't repossess. I think her mum has taken over full control of her finances - a small price to pay for her parents bailing her out, I suppose.

Kevicho

Get your friend to post on here, I guarantee in a month or two she ll be able to properly take control of her own finances again

digp

You should ask them to discontinue the case. Alternatively, file a defence and they'll soon run a mile?

tobedifferent

What you have to remember here is that regardless of whether your friend has now paid up her rent arrears she has already broken the terms of her tenancy by failing to pay her rent when it was due, therefore her landlord has the right to apply for her eviction. Given the time it takes to bring proceedings she must have been pretty far behind, especially if this is a council or HA property. They won't run away if she files a defence, they are used to it and they are also in the right.

As far as I can see what they are offering your friend is an opportunity to stay in the property providing she keeps up to date with her rental payments. If she does not she will go straight to possession proceedings again. From the LL point of view she has done it once and she may do it again, and next time she may not have anyone to help her out. They need to protect their own interests as well. If your friend refuses to agree to this then most likely she will have to defend herself in court and the chances of her getting the case dropped are slim to nil, the best she can hope for is a stay for a period of normally a year before the case is dropped, which sounds exactly the same as what she is being offered now. Its fairly standard procedure in these cases.

Providing she keeps her rent account clean she has nothing to worry about.

Bossyboots

If she doesn't agree the liberty to restore, the claimant will almost certainly go ahead with the court hearing so that an order can be made in those terms, which they are inevitably going to succeed with. They will then ask that your friend be ordered to pay the costs of the hearing on a "wasted costs" basis as she could have agreed it by consent.

I can't see any prejudice to her in agreeing to it being adjourned with liberty to restore and there are clearly financial benefits for her to do so. If she defaults again, they are going to take her back to court even if they have to start fresh proceedings, the costs of which will be higher than simply restoring the matter from the dormant proceedings.

oscar52

Managed to find some ifno on Liberty to Restore via google.

From how I understand it, reading several areas (and can have different meanings) it would appear they have ceased court action as the arrears have now been paid off. However, if there are arreaers on the account in the future (not sure how long this would last for) they can just take up proceedings again from where they left off - they wouldnt have to start again with a separate case. I think reading stuff on the web, it usually applies where information needs verification (ie ownership), and once this has been sought, the case can proceed. In this case there is no longer a debt, but if one was to occur again (i would assume without reading the tenancy this would be two months arrears given one late payment can occur occasionally due to pay dates and such), then they would just restart the case

pennylane99

yes, it just means that proceedings have been halted for now, but can be brought back to life if there are any future defaults, without starting the whole process again from scratch.

Dumbledore55

Tobedifferent - she isn't renting property its her own house and she was £3K in arrears with her mortgage.

Thanks for the information - I'll advise her to speak to the CAB before she sends the form back.

Dumbledore55

OK - court case was held, my friend responded by letter agreeing for an adjournment and asking for clarification on what 'liberty to restore' would mean for her.

She didn't attend in person and neither did the bank. She's now had a letter saying the case has been 'struck out' - does anyone know what that means?