House repossession hearing

Mollie_Guinness15

First of all thanks everyone for their help on this board.
I'm now on the home straight, discharged and with just the IPA to continue for another 24 months.
The last piece in the jigsaw is the house repossession hearing.
I surrendered my keys 14 months ago, but the BS refused to accept without me signing a DOA. They even sent me a letter saying "sign it but we won't chase you for the shortfall letter", which I posted previously.
I'm half tempted to go to court to ask this question and make the judge aware that it took them 14 months to get to this point, when in fact it was unnecessary. Is it worth going, or as the outcome will have no impact on me, just let it lie?

silvercar

Pointless. The judge can't force a BS to repossess.

Mollie_Guinness15

Hi Silvercar

Thanks for your reply.
I'm not asking the judge to force a repossession, but ask them why they took it this far when the keys were surrendered, with a letter of voluntary repossession 14 months ago.

fermi

If it was me, and I had the time, I would go. Just to make sure the judge was aware fully that you want it done and gone and they understand the circumstances.

Should not really be necessary, but personally I would like to see it's done in person and not have to wait for a letter.

Mollie_Guinness15

Thanks Fermi

Cobalt77

Yep, I would go too.

Who is the incompetent lender? Northern Rock by any chance?

fermi

This is Chelsea BS I think?

Mollie_Guinness15

Yes, that's correct.

Mollie_Guinness15

The court forms have arrived, do I have to complete them, or as I'm happy for repossession just leave it.

Cobalt77

Given the uniqueness of your case (i.e. you've already gone BR and surrendered the keys), I would personally telephone the Court first and ask the Court staff which paperwork (if any) needs to be completed.

You are not objecting to the repo, so don't need to file a defence per se. All you are after is to personally present your side of events to the judge.

Plus, by turning up in person, you may well increase the costs for the Lender as they will need to pay someone to represent them in Court (typically a "rentabrief" junior solicitor who knows stuff all about your case and doesn't care a jot about it either, as they are being paid a fixed fee for turning up)

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE - READ THIS - EXPERT ADVICE MAY BE NEEDED

As I was writing this reply, something rather important occurred to me.

Once the repossession is granted and takes place, any shortfall obviously forms part of your BR and will be written off.

However, I seem to recall a case where a creditor actually took someone to Court (e.g. small claims) after that person has been made BR, and the individual simply ignored all the Court documents because they believed it was all included in the bankruptcy anyway.

While the actual debt was included within the BR, ALL the actual Court costs & legal fees were incurred after the individual had gone BR and so the individual was liable to pay them (even though they had just gone bust!)

I mention this not to unduly alarm you, and my recollection of the case may be incorrect - but it just stuck in my mind as being completely unfair when I initially learned about it.

So, my advice to you is to get immediate advice from a proper expert (like a qualified lawyer or resident "professional" expert here) ASAP before doing anything.

You may well have to turn up in person anyway to make sure the other side don't try to get any costs awarded against you.

Please keep us updated, as I'd love to know the answer and whether my case recollection is correct (although I hope that it's wrong in this case!)

HTH

fermi

Cobalt77 wrote: »

While the actual debt was included within the BR, ALL the actual Court costs & legal fees were incurred after the individual had gone BR and so the individual was liable to pay them (even though they had just gone bust!)

That should NOT be the case, as they are still a bankruptcy debts and covered, as per s382 of the Insolvency Act.

Think I can remember a few lenders trying it on, only to be told 'no way' by the judge.

382 “Bankruptcy debt”, etc.

(1) “Bankruptcy debt”, in relation to a bankrupt, means (subject to the next subsection) any of the following—

(a) any debt or liability to which he is subject at the commencement of the bankruptcy,

(b) any debt or liability to which he may become subject after the commencement of the bankruptcy (including after his discharge from bankruptcy) by reason of any obligation incurred before the commencement of the bankruptcy,