NRAM "demanding" Income and Expenditure. Help needed please

DancingDolly

Can anyone help me with this please. I consult these forums regularly and always find them of great help. A good friend has come to me knowing that I rave about this site! Has asked for advice.
He has a Buy to Let mortgage with NRAM. Cut a long story short, they took him to Court last year based on a fraudulent Income and Expenditure asking for an Eviction Order. Fraudulent because it was non existent! Should never of even got to Court, right?! Made an offer which Judge upheld and all was fine. This was up until January of this year when the monthly mortgage payment was £45 short because of a Gas Safety Check. (Letting agent deducted from rental income) The payment was still over the monthly mortgage payment. But, because NRAM now say that he broke the arrangement they need to put another one in place and they "have" to have an I&E. The full agreed monthly amount has been paid every month since this one shortfall and he assures me he has made many many offers to put an agreement in place for the original agreed amount. Now I'm not a big fan of the Bankters, and neither is my friend. We have been told that he is NOT legally obliged to submit an I&E which NRAM have acknowledged to be correct, but they have said as part of their process he has to complete one. Now, he's received a letter saying that NRAM has instructed a firm of agents acting on their behalf to visit both rental property and his property to discuss his financial circumstances. If he meets them, no charge, if he doesn't agree to meet them they charge £103.50 to be debited the loan balance!!
Now, giving the current state of the Banking Industry and what they've all been up to in recent times he doesn't want to just be subservient to their demands and wants to fight back. Question is, can anyone advise what law we can quote/cite in his next letter to them in order to squash their bullying tactics and tell them once and for all that an I&E is legally not required in order to put a payment agreement in place. Monthly payments are being made on time every month since, for the full original agreed amount that the Judge put in place.
Would be grateful of any advice or links. Thanks in advance.

DevCoder

Why doesnt he just present an I&E? What's he got to hide? Surely an I&E makes all the issues go away?

Som,metimes you cut off your nose to spite your face when its just easier to go along, life is too short.

dld2s

Sorry I cant really help too much, but my first thought is why not just give them the I&E It's hardly being majorly subservient to the banks is it!

Unless he has something to hide what's the problem with doing a I&E and getting things back on track with NRAM? at the end of the day your friend opened the door to it by not keeping his side of the agreement, no matter what caused the problem for the payment to be less it was up to your friend to make sure the agreed amount was paid, if he had, there would be no I&E asked for, as Kris says, it's easier to do this than not don't you think?

DancingDolly

With all due respect, I don't think you've read the Post properly. As a Nation we've all "just gone along with it" for too long.
He's got nothing to hide.

Hanky_Panky

DD - please see my reply on your other post on this subject.

dld2s

DancingDolly wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think you've read the Post properly. As a Nation we've all "just gone along with it" for too long.
He's got nothing to hide.

Cool,even worse, he's got nothing to hide, to me he's giving himself a lot of hassle, for what! half hours work possibly filling in a I&E?

"As a Nation we've all "just gone along with it" (whats your friends name, Citizen Smith- joke ) to me at least I don't see not filling in a I&E a fight back for the nation , as I said I just see it as giving yourself a lot of hassle for next to nothing .

I suppose if there's nothing else you can do and the bank stick to their process and no one on here can help ( I honestly don't know, i''m just looking at it in what I perceive to be a reasonable manner) could he, as a last resort go back to court and ask the judge if the bank are being unreasonable in following their process after the agreement was broken, albeit only in the once?

Anyway whatever happens, good luck with it

silvercar

DancingDolly wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think you've read the Post properly. As a Nation we've all "just gone along with it" for too long.
He's got nothing to hide.

Bottom line is that a suspended repossession order means the lender can go straight back to court as soon as the agreed repayment plan is breached.

This is a tenanted property, so the BTL mortgage protects the tenants' rights to stay in their (rented) home until the end of their tenancy agreement. No-one is going to be out on the streets as a result of a repossession, so a judge is less likely to deal kindly on the "hard done by". It will be a pure factual hearing, agreed repayment plan, that was a result of arrears that led to initial hearing, has been breached. NRAM asks for possession and it is very likely to be granted. If the lender is offering any straws, I strongly suggest you grab them.

DancingDolly

Thanks dld2s. Yes maybe I am on the wrong site.

Agricolae

While I can see why you and your friend are rather annoyed with NRAM, ultimately your friend broke his contract with them and they are entitled by law to seek a remedy for that.

I would say it is far better to co-operate in this case, and to refuse to do anything is a bit risky. The law is on NRAM's side and your friend probably has more to lose by being uncooperative.

Yes, banks can be frustrating and make demands which sound unfair, but I am concerned that because you have not got the answers you were hoping for on here, you are just going to keep asking different people until someone tells you you're right. I feel that is unlikely to end well.

Presumably he has nothing to lose by filling out the form.

Thrugelmir

DancingDolly wrote: »

This was up until January of this year when the monthly mortgage payment was £45 short because of a Gas Safety Check.

Hardly surprising that they require an I&E account if such a small amount goes unpaid and therefore an arrangement to pay is defaulted on. As NRAM is expending a huge amount of time and expense managing the account.

Working in finance you know that when people get defensive that they've something to hide. Often previously undisclosed facts. That's human nature.

Agricolae

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Hardly surprising that they require an I&E account if such a small amount goes unpaid and therefore an arrangement to pay is defaulted on. As NRAM is expending a huge amount of time and expense managing the account.

Working in finance you know that when people get defensive that they've something to hide. Often previously undisclosed facts. That's human nature.

Either that or they are genuinely unreasonable or are incapable of looking at the situation objectively.