Theft of personal belongings by Natwest

rev_pinky

martinbuckley wrote: »

If you had £15k worth of tools that you clearly weren't using, why didn't you sell them and pay your mortgage?

martinbuckley what makes you think i wasnt using them to try and pay the mortgage ? If you wish, i could explain why i lost the house in full detail but it is neither relevant nor any of your business.

Please keep your comments pertinent to the question ask.

rev_pinky

To clarify- An arrangement was made between the lender, the estate agent and myself that allowed me to keep the shelter (temporary garage) on the property until such time as i could remove it.
Due to a serious housing shortage at the time i could not find accommodation for myself and my two children before eviction.

Due to the type and quantity of tools, the shelter was needed to house them.

When i found suitable space for the shelter and contacted the estate agent/lender (within weeks) I was told i could not remove shelter due to it being deemed as part of the fixtures and fittings which was shown to be not the case.

I was then told the shelter was listed on the deeds of the property and was threatened with legal action if i removed.

Subsequent land registry search shows no structure on the property.

Without the shelter i had no where to store my equipment so i appealed again and during this time the house was sold with shelter and tools.

I have so far made 3 official complaints to Natwest and the ombudsman and all have sided with Natwest due to the claims of the shelter being on the deeds.

NO this shouldnt happen but it has with full evidence.

warby68

I doubt it is 'on the deeds' that is the issue but probably that everyone apart from you (ie estate agent, valuers, Bank and the average man in the street) viewed the 'temporary garage' as a permanent fixture/improvement to the property and therefore a legitimate inclusion in the sale.

You viewed it as temporary , they did not - that seems to be the real argument.

An early agreement was rescinded quite clearly from the way you describe it, possibly when the parties realized the true nature of this 'temporary shelter'. If you've taken this issue to the Ombudsman three times, it seems that legal advice is the only option left to see if you have any argument with traction left.

I think the £15000 of tools still being there at the day of sale is virtually impossible to prove. It certainly seems improbable that someone would do that although I know you became ill.

silvercar

I have so far made 3 official complaints to Natwest and the ombudsman and all have sided with Natwest due to the claims of the shelter being on the deeds.

Why didn't you submit a copy of the deeds in your complaint to the ombudsman?

rev_pinky

silvercar wrote: »

Why didn't you submit a copy of the deeds in your complaint to the ombudsman?

I was under the impression that the ombudsmen would check with land registry as part of the investigation, that is what i was told by them. They only investigated the first complaint as the later two were linked to the original so was told they didnt see the point.

The lender was fully aware of the tools at time of sale as they kept the keys.

silvercar

rev_pinky wrote: »

I was under the impression that the ombudsmen would check with land registry as part of the investigation, that is what i was told by them. They only investigated the first complaint as the later two were linked to the original so was told they didnt see the point.

The lender was fully aware of the tools at time of sale as they kept the keys.

So first the estate agent says one thing to you that proves not to be true, then the ombudsman says one thing that also proves untrue.

I can understand them only investigating a complaint once, but you would have thought that you would have provided the evidence from Land Registry when you questioned the original ruling.

Even if the lender had the keys, for practical purposes it would the appointed estate agent who visited the property. I'm surprised they didn't allow you to remove them.

Unless you have the money for a court case I don't know where else you can turn.

Someone has your tools. Either the new owners innocently as part of the sale or the estate agent. They won't be in the possession of the lender as they won't have storage facilities. I suspect they are no long gone.

davidmcn

silvercar wrote: »

Why didn't you submit a copy of the deeds in your complaint to the ombudsman?

rev_pinky wrote: »

I was under the impression that the ombudsmen would check with land registry as part of the investigation, that is what i was told by them.

silvercar wrote: »

I can understand them only investigating a complaint once, but you would have thought that you would have provided the evidence from Land Registry when you questioned the original ruling.

As I said above, I think people are barking up the wrong tree about this "on the deeds" point, and the Land Registry wouldn't be able to clarify anything useful. The charge is over the land, and everything which happens to be built on it from time to time - not particular structures. So if you build a garage, it becomes part of the mortgaged property. I'm not sure what made this garage any more "temporary" than other garden sheds etc, but as soon as you call it a "garage" I think it's hard to argue that it's a chattel which objectively would be likely for a borrower to pack up and take with them.

rev_pinky

silvercar wrote: »

So first the estate agent says one

I can understand them only investigating a complaint once, but you would have thought that you would have provided the evidence from Land Registry when you questioned the original ruling.
.

As mentioned i was told by the ombudsman that they would fully investigate my claim and i did not see any point in sending a copy when they would be doing a search or so i thought but there "investigation" stated that if Natwest had said it was on the deeds then they had no reason to dis-believe them.

The shelter was not deemed part of the property as it was not fixed to the ground and could be removed at no detriment to the building or plot. As per the definition of a chattel.
It is Natwest stating the shelter was listed on the deeds and not myself so i dont see your point.

davidmcn

rev_pinky wrote: »

The shelter was not deemed part of the property as it was not fixed to the ground and could be removed at no detriment to the building or plot. As per the definition of a chattel.
It is Natwest stating the shelter was listed on the deeds and not myself so i dont see your point.

It doesn't really matter who brought up the "deeds" issue (you weren't clear about that in your OP), my point is that if anybody who understood mortgages had been involved in that discussion they could have nipped it in the bud.

And you also called the "shelter" a "garage" - you've seen it, we haven't, so we can only really go on your description. I expect garages to be fixed to the ground.

silvercar

rev_pinky wrote: »

As mentioned i was told by the ombudsman that they would fully investigate my claim and i did not see any point in sending a copy when they would be doing a search or so i thought but there "investigation" stated that if Natwest had said it was on the deeds then they had no reason to dis-believe them.

The shelter was not deemed part of the property as it was not fixed to the ground and could be removed at no detriment to the building or plot. As per the definition of a chattel.
It is Natwest stating the shelter was listed on the deeds and not myself so i dont see your point.

My point was that if I was trying to gather evidence to prove a point and there was £15,000 of tools at stake, I would spend £3 to download the deeds to demonstrate my case, rather than hope the opposing side would do that. Certainly by the second complaint, i would be looking for all the evidence to prove the other side wrong, not just hoping they will provide it themselves.