Solicitor fcilitated lender to sell standard security i gave the lender

DCFC79

Have you seen a solicitor OP as advised in one of the other threads ?

amibeingrippedoff_2

DCFC79 wrote: »

Have you seen a solicitor OP as advised in one of the other threads ?

Yes many, with different views and costs, but all reluctant to say much about the acts of the lenders solicitor

PeacefulWaters

amibeingrippedoff wrote: »

Yes many, with different views and costs, but all reluctant to say much about the acts of the lenders solicitor

You either appoint one to represent your interests or give up.

There's little anybody here can suggest beyond that.

davidmcn

I think you're getting confused about various things and it would probably help if you at least got some initial advice from a solicitor. From what you've said, there's nothing unusual about a lender selling on a debt, though it should then only be the new creditor who is entitled to pursue you.

Also, the only sums which can be recovered are those due in terms of the loan agreement - I wouldn't pay much attention to any sums stated in the Standard Security. A court isn't going to require you to repay sums which were never advanced to you in the first place.

Brock_and_Roll

I have read the OPs previous threads as well as this one and it appears to me that this issue is made up of two parts:

1) The original loan agreement between the OP and the lender

2) The "securitisation" carried out between the lender and the overseas party.


From what I have read it seems pretty clear that if this ever came to court (and it would be disastrous if it were to due to the costs) that the judge would disregard the second part as it is not relevant to what may or may not be owed by the OP under his loan agreement even if there was something dodgy done by the lender in selling security that was not perfect/valid.

So this is just a big red herring and tbh I think the OP knows this and is trying to muddy the waters legally. I think this was a private agreement so even if the terms of the loan regarding cancellation are "unfair" or usurious that just tough unless the OP can show that the lender has in some way breached his side of the agreement.

amibeingrippedoff_2

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

I have read the OPs previous threads as well as this one and it appears to me that this issue is made up of two parts:

1) The original loan agreement between the OP and the lender

2) The "securitisation" carried out between the lender and the overseas party.


From what I have read it seems pretty clear that if this ever came to court (and it would be disastrous if it were to due to the costs) that the judge would disregard the second part as it is not relevant to what may or may not be owed by the OP under his loan agreement even if there was something dodgy done by the lender in selling security that was not perfect/valid.

So this is just a big red herring and tbh I think the OP knows this and is trying to muddy the waters legally. I think this was a private agreement so even if the terms of the loan regarding cancellation are "unfair" or usurious that just tough unless the OP can show that the lender has in some way breached his side of the agreement.

How does this sound for a scenario of the breach of loan agreement by the lender.

The lender is providing x amount as a loan, this loan will be provided in two stages.

The first stage release of the loan is subject to a valuation report. the borrower awaits to see if the lenders report is acceptable to him, (the lender instructed the report)
The lender solicitor advises the borrowers solicitor that the lender has carried out the report and is happy and will loan the money, every one is happy.

The first stage funds are released, the boorrower uses the money for what it was intended then goes back to the lender for the second and final stage funds.
NOW!
The lender decides to change his tune and refuses to provide the second stage funds as he has now decided that he is not happy with that EXACT SAME REPORT he had based the release of the first stage funds.

The lender want a new contract written up to incorporate another condition within the contract that he then decided he wants included, just to add salt to the wound, the borrower would have to pay for all legal costs to have this done.

Whats your thoughts

-taff

You need proper advice. Posting about it here is not going to get you that.
Go and see a solicitor.

PeacefulWaters

amibeingrippedoff wrote: »

How does this sound for a scenario of the breach of loan agreement by the lender.

The lender is providing x amount as a loan, this loan will be provided in two stages.

The first stage release of the loan is subject to a valuation report. the borrower awaits to see if the lenders report is acceptable to him, (the lender instructed the report)
The lender solicitor advises the borrowers solicitor that the lender has carried out the report and is happy and will loan the money, every one is happy.

The first stage funds are released, the boorrower uses the money for what it was intended then goes back to the lender for the second and final stage funds.
NOW!
The lender decides to change his tune and refuses to provide the second stage funds as he has now decided that he is not happy with that EXACT SAME REPORT he had based the release of the first stage funds.

The lender want a new contract written up to incorporate another condition within the contract that he then decided he wants included, just to add salt to the wound, the borrower would have to pay for all legal costs to have this done.

Whats your thoughts

What bit of "get your own solicitor" don't you understand?

davidmcn

amibeingrippedoff wrote: »

Whats your thoughts

No idea without seeing the loan agreement.

amibeingrippedoff_2

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

What bit of "get your own solicitor" don't you understand?

Just the part where they ask for £

---