Repossession Hearing Friday, can I claim costs?

Gary123456790

SivEd wrote: »

...I agree with charges, but I think they are excessive and should be at, or close to, cost.

I used to work for a sub-prime lender. They were not allowed to make a profit on charges, it was only staff time, etc that could be charged for.

They had to reduce their charges and remove some completely as some were too high and others were added when no work was actually done.

One example is an account management charge, which applies if you are in arrears, it was £70 a month. This was because a manager reviewed the account to check what action was being taken, that it was appropriate, etc, BUT if you made an arrangement (i.e. paid a bit extra each month by agreement) then the monthly charge was not added. This was because since you had contacted us and were dealing with the arrears, there was no manager review, hence no charge.

So all charges must result in action, and no profit can be made.

Unfortunately when you get to reposession stage, solicitors are used and they can get paid a lot, so the charges can be high if that is justifiable, i.e. it is what it costs the lender to carry out the action.

Thanks,

Gary.

SivEd

Hi there,

OK, I got through my case on Friday. So I hope that will be encouragement to anyone else finding themselves in a multiple repossession situation. The important thing was that my circumstances changed and I was in a position to repay my mortgage and something off the arrears. That is all the judge wants to see. With proof of course.

I had no representation as I could not afford it, but I was of course paying for my opposing solicitor who tried hard (under instruction) to get me evicted. My arrears had increased by £40 since the last hearing and he tried to make a deal of it, which I had to smile about. In fact he didn't have the last payment on his file that would have turned that around because I had paid another £80 towards the arrears. I didn't mention it as I could see the judge wasn't very impressed with that argument anyway.

In the end it was a complete rubber stamping exercise and the judge agreed with every argument I made. If I had representation, I would have asked if they could have asked for costs, but alone, I was shaking like a leaf! I did push back a little though as I asked for the payment to be delayed by 10 days to ensure my paycheque went in before the standing order went out. The judge agreed without hesitation.

In reality, my arrears have neither increased nor decreased in the last 12 months and the judge accepted every statement I made (I had evidence to back it all up anyway).

This is the important bit: I called before the eviction date was set and they refused to accept my assurances of new work, without ever asking for evidence.

From the comments made on here, it isn't normal behaviour to not ask for evidence.

Moving forward, everything is now on a standing order, so as long as I remain in work, payments will be made and (lucky me) I'll still have a little left over every month. I also doubled my arrears repayment which I hope will make the mortgage company happier, though I'm probably off the Christmas card list!

My whole point here, which unfortunately got a little lost, is that this should not have gone to court in the first place and that for that reason I wanted costs. Comments about how much it costs mortgage companies are completely counterbalanced by how much it cost me. In that last call to the building society, the person at the other end of the phone was definitely "taking a view" on the legal action they would take and I think might have acted differently if it wasn't effectively "free" for her to take court action. All the costs are put on me even though I won. That is not fair and undoubtedly increases the number of people made homeless (what percentage with eviction notices go to court), which in turn we ALL pay for through social housing. Talk of increased costs for mortgage payers of court costs are probably more than balanced by that. If mortgage companies had to think twice before repossessing because they MIGHT loose, I think that would make for a fairer system.

Yes, in cases where the judge rules in favour of the mortgage company, those charges should definitely be passed on and that other mortgage payers should not be made to pay. But mortgage companies should be sure of their ground before legal action is taken and if they don't win, the charges should not be passed on. It is unfair on the individual who has been put in that position. Certainly the person who decides who pays should be the judge, NOT one of the interested parties!

Gary, I believe your company had it right by the sounds of it, but I am interested in who "made them" do it.

Also, is that true across all mortgage lenders or is it special because yours was a sub-prime lender? Is there any legislation on this or guidance?

I would definitely argue that £25 for a standard, computer generated missed payment letter is too much and the practice of sending "an advisor" to help should have the agreement of the borrower and the charge should be discussed up front, which it never was in my case. You can't just send people round without permission and charge them - without even telling them.

In fact, one good thing, my bank now does is provide an annual statement which tells me up front how much they have charged me. My mortgage company are keeping that information hidden, which is definitely going to make me suspicious! If the charges are fair, why are they hiding them?

There was a comment earlier that banks are still as bad in terms of charges as they were before people started to reclaim charges and the government got involved, but my personal experience is that they are charging much less. As discussed here, I had a torrid year last year, and missed a few payments, but my total bank charges for the year were £16 because the standard letter charge had been reduced to £8 (much fairer) from £35 and they weren't charging for multiple incidents on the same day. Back in 2006, I actually felt "milked", like their whole policy on charges was geared to make profit from those charges. I was not alone! The "greedy banks" reputation came from this too.

I think the mortgage companies should be open, like the banks are. I have an annual statement from my mortgage company, charges are never mentioned!

Hanky_Panky

SivEd wrote: »

This is the important bit: I called before the eviction date was set and they refused to accept my assurances of new work, without ever asking for evidence.

From the comments made on here, it isn't normal behaviour to not ask for evidence.
It's largely irrlevant and a red herring in your case.


You can't just send people round without permission and charge them - without even telling them.
They always tell you in writing but it's generally ignored.


There was a comment earlier that banks are still as bad in terms of charges as they were before people started to reclaim charges and the government got involved, but my personal experience is that they are charging much less.
Which means you were one of the minority who benefited from the new charging structure - this also means you ran your account very poorly and incurred a lot of charges. The majority are now subsidising you whereas before they enjoyed free banking if they ran their accounts in order.

So in summary - you brought your suspended order payment amount up to date before the hearing which is good and that stopped the Judge from awarding the possession.

The point you seem to miss is that each time you default on this arrangement you will be back in court - there is little leeway on this and your 'promises' you will pay again soon are empty - as I mentioned the only thing that matters at this stage for you is your payment record.

You are however doing yourself a favour if you pay above the suspended order amount as you will be getting yourself 'ahead', so should you lose your job again you may just have given yourself some leeway. Please be warned though this may not work.

SivEd

This thread is about claiming costs at my hearing. I didn't try so we'll never know. But it certainly felt like I could have. Has anybody actually reading this thread tried and failed or tried and succeeded? That would be useful to know and was my original question.

The judge was impartial and behaved completely within the law, but there was no point in the proceedings that the decision wasn't going my way, despite the opposing solicitor's trying. He (the opposing solicitor) earned every penny I paid him!

It was CrazyAngel who said that it was standard practice to ask for proof if a customer tells you that thier circumstances have changed. Maybe you think because it was the fourth time they just wouldn't bother? But they did it the first and second times too. The first time was particularly confusing and disappointing.

If the circumstances were different, i.e. I hadn't found employment, I would have been evicted and that would be that. As I said before the hearing, I was prepared to accept either outcome and certainly without a job I would indeed have been out on my !!!!. Voluntarily.

The mortgage company did write to me about the advisor/form copier paying a visit. My point is they should have told me that it was going to cost. They didn't. They should also have asked, not just sent him. If I sent you a telly that I knew you had to pay for, but didn't tell you, and the first you found out about it was that the money had been deducted from your bank account, you'd cry sharp practice in a second. That's what the adviser scam is. I had it covered, the guy knew that and probably told the mortgage company. He shouldn't have come and then when he did and saw I was already covered for advice thank-you-very-much he should have left and no charge should have been made.

The general point about charges is that they should be up front and there should be a statement at an annual minimum that includes those charges. It is dishonest to keep them hidden until the charges are already on your arrears. Barclays have got their house in order on that score and I would recommend them now, whereas not so long ago I wouldn't.

I have no intention of default on this agreement just as I had no intention of defaulting on any of the previous agreements. I have said it too many times already it's been a difficult couple of years and I hope to god this is the end of it. IF I stay in this job, everything is on a standing order and there is even a little budget left over for a pint of beer. But I want to get these arrears out of the way as fast as possible that's why I upped the offer. I know this thread has been adversarial at times, but believe me I am just trying to get everything back on the straight and narrow. With current arrears and repayments that'll take just over 3 years with this current arrangement. Legally I could have spread it out over the 18 years remaining on the mortgage and still the judge would have accepted it.

If at a point in the future I find myself in court again with this mortgage company, where I feel they haven't given me a chance, I will almost certainly be looking for costs. I know we aren't going to be best friends now, but all I want is fair treatment. If I loose my job again, I am certain I will receive the legal minimum of everything before they try and evict again, but I am sadly now far too practiced in court and will fight them if I must. I don't want to be here, but I am.

Colin297

I'm a recently qualified solicitor but i dont work in this area generally.

Generally in the County Court the Judge has a discretion in relation to costs. I've no doubt this is the position in your case also. In theory therefore, the judge could very easily make no order as to costs which is to say that each party simply bears their own costs.

However, i suspect that such proceedings will generally, almost as a rule of thumb, see the judge award costs against the respondent (you).

Ultimately, it's up to your solicitor to apply to the Court (ask) for no order as to costs given the circumstances. A few very well made submissions could help here and it could literally depend on who the judge is. That said, if the mortgage company make it clear that this is the fourth time such proceedings have been contemplated it's highly likely IMO that the Judge will order costs against you. Worth a try though!!

Let us know how it goes.



EDIT - I just read the last few posts. Pity you didn't ask for no order as to costs. Aw well.

Gary123456790

SivEd wrote: »

Gary, I believe your company had it right by the sounds of it, but I am interested in who "made them" do it.

Hi,

It was an FSA review of fees and charges following complaints that went to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

If you feel you have been wrongly treated then definately complain to the lender in writing. They should deal properly with your complaint, and most likely will remove some charges if you make it clear that you will go the the FOS if your complaint is not dealt with. Anything you can get them to remove is a bonus because you dont have to pay it back then!

Make your complaint letter clear - leave out any emotion, just state clearly where you feel the failings were, detail any charges you feel are unfair and any process which was not followed correctly.

Companies have to pay £600 to the FOS when a case goes to them, whether they decide in your favour or not so they may feel its better to give you a few charges back to stop you going to the FOS.

There are templates for complaint letters online, but as stated above just make it clear, saying why you were not happy and mention 'TCF - Treating Customers Fairly'. It is FOS/FSA terminology that lenders should be following but often does not happen.

SivEd wrote: »

Also, is that true across all mortgage lenders or is it special because yours was a sub-prime lender? Is there any legislation on this or guidance?

I am not 100% sure but believe it is standard that lenders cannot make a profit on fees and charges. They can seem high though and be justified because of maintenance to computer systems, printing costs, staff to post, copies to be put on your file, etc, but they must be justifiable, e.g. not just be figures plucked out of the air.

Gary.

The_J

SivEd wrote: »

Untrue. You are speaking in generalities rather than looking at the specifics of what has actually happened. This recession, repossessions have grown and rates have shrunk. Doesn't matter how "generalised" you make it, that's the exact opposite of the mechanism you describe (and try to blame on struggling mortgage payers). My point is that much, much bigger forces are completely swamping any effect repossessions are having making it irrelevant to rates. The answer I'd really like to know the answer to is how profitable repossessions actually are? Maybe they are actually reducing rates?

Rates have shrunk because money (having been printed) has been made available very cheaply. Repossessions are not profitable in the slightest. Most banks will lose 10s of thousands.

Good to hear you have a chance to make it work though.