FirstPlus started Repo Action

itguy_2

Hmmm...interesting. I don't know whether it's a legal requirement to sign in front of a solicitor, although we had to when we signed for our mortgage.

The forms were 'witnessed' by members of my wife's family (also forged), even though the forms stated that the witnesses couldn't be family members!

They're obviously thorough when vetting their applicants...

Bernard_Coleslaw

ejones999 wrote: »

There was a famous case in banking law (which I no longer remember the name of) which made this procedure compulsory as far as the bank was concerned and to prevent what has happened here.

The O'Brien case in 1993? Should be Google-able.

jonesMUFCforever

Bernard_Coleslaw wrote: »

The O'Brien case in 1993? Should be Google-able.

No it was way before then.
I have tried to google but to no avail.
I threw out the banking books years ago!

matto

There has been a very similar story on these threads somewhere before.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=208665&highlight=undue+influence

I think the conclusion from that thread was that unless you shop your wife for fraud you'll have to live with the consequences.

My post on that thread went as follows:

OP - are you aware of the established case law in this area. In particular:

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)[2001]

As a minimum it requires the lender to send you a letter before the loan is made. Of course your wife may have intercepted this.

[Deleted User]

You sold your soul and they are now claiming there prize.

Dylanwing

The last secured loan I took other than a mortgage only needed a witness to sign, with the stipulation being that it must not be a family member. Tough call, in a nutshell report your wife for fraud, or together deal with the mess as best as possible. From the FP viewpoint, they could view the alleged fraud as a smokescreen to avoid the debt. I think you both need proper legal advice on this.

I hope that you can find a way out of this mess, and I wish you well.
Yant1 - Do you REALLY think that is an appropriate comment?

[Deleted User]

Sorry but i dont buy it, wifey spent 75k without me knowing on a loan i had no idea about. Did she buy magic beans with it.

petermb_2

Hi Itguy

Your saving grace in this instance may well be that the lender, good old First Plus will have no doubt got things wrong yet again when setting up the loan in the first place. The fact is that both parties in this instance are likely to be found in the wrong.

I have no doubt that FP are claiming arrears, the amount of which can be successfully challenged. On the other hand the loan was set up fraudulently. It will be interesting to see how this one ends up.

I will give you any assistance I can.

regards

Peter

matto

Was the original debt solely in your wife's name?

You should read this summary of the decision in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)

http://www.iflr.com/?Page=10&PUBID=33&ISS=12005&SID=511254&TYPE=20

This case is a refinement of the O'Brien case some of you have referred to above.

itguy_2

Hi,

Thanks for the replies. I'll answer a couple of points then get onto the latest developments...

Yant1 - I understand your scepticism. I too am at a loss as to how such a quantity of money could be squandered with nothing to show for it. From what I can make out so far, a lot of it has been a snowball effect - eg using one card to pay off another, or topping up the current account with a credit card. A vicious circle of debt and desparation.

Matto - thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it. As for the original debt, no - some of it would have been in joint names.


OK - my solicitor wrote to FP, who called him. They said that they'd commenced the legal proceedings because I'd not provided them with what they'd asked for (the certified ID and crime ref. no.) - even though I'd sent them two letters after theirs.

FP have said that upon receipt of a copy of my passport, proof of address and a sample of my signature they will restart the investigation. Although they've not explicitly said so, they've implied that they will suspend the legal proceedings pending the outcome of the investigation.

FP also said that they receive a lot allegations of this nature, of which 75% turn out to be people trying to get out of the agreement because they've realised they've over-committed themselves financially.

Thanks again!