Mortgage Lender admits failure to notify with notice of repossession

Sbotts

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes, but I think you'd have a sounder case if you could show that you were already trying to sell it and only needed a bit more time - rather than arguing that you would have started from scratch if you had been prompted by the repossession action.

Yes, I may have had a sounder case if the house were already on the market - but at least I'd still have a case. I was not notified of the case, which my lender has admitted and apologised for. Law stipulates I should've been notified of the case in writing but the letter was sent to the security address and not my home address following their error not to update their system.

My thread is asking if anyone knows or could advise on what happens if this procedure isn't followed by the lender. What are the ramifications? Could anyone point to information or even a company that would be able to advise me as the customer?

foxy-stoat

Sbotts wrote: »

My thread is asking if anyone knows or could advise on what happens if this procedure isn't followed by the lender. What are the ramifications? Could anyone point to information or even a company that would be able to advise me as the customer?

I do not think folk know the answer.

All we actually know is, what happens if the customer doesn't follow the correct procedures of their mortgage agreement - ie not pay......the home is at risk if you do not keep up with the repayments.

The onus should of been on you to keep in constant contact with the lender. You must of either ceased all communications with them for a very long time or you were in 6 months + in arrears with the mortgage for them to secure a repossession order, advertise it and get a sale as it takes months to sell a property in the UK.

Still unsure why you would not just move back when the tenants left after evicting them for non payment of rent, no point in paying rent somewhere else and having to try and make payments to the existing mortgage.

Good luck with your case.

dunstonh

Errors do not automatically result in redress. Most commonly they result in a goodwill gesture of £250.

I had a client where the pension provider gave the wrong value for 15 years and the person retired and moved house on that basis. Error was found the value was 1/10th. Pension providers apologised and offered £250. FOS looked at it and said £400. This was mainly as one of the couple died during the process and the other party said it was due to the stress of the pension. The FOS said that they should have known there was an issue and been more proactive in resolving it.

There are a few issues that you would need to overcome.
1 - why were the tenants, when there was some, not passing mail to you?
2 - when it was empty, why were you not seeing the mail when you did your visits to the property?
3 - knowing that you were having extreme difficulty with the financials, why did you not question the lack of communications?

An error by one party does not automatically mean you get bucketloads of cash thrown at you. There has to be a cause and effect. i.e If you knew about the repossession order would it have made any difference? Probably not. You had no tenants. it was not up for sale. No indication that you were doing anything to mitigate the losses.

Whereas, if you had it up for sale at a quick price sale and had interested parties then it would be a very different matter. a) it shows you were doing something to mitigate losses b) time would make a difference c) the repossession may not have been necessary.

You didn't pay the mortgage. Did the failure to change the address have any impact on the repayments to the mortgage? No. So, the outcome would still have been the same.

Nobody here has the audit trail of events or the issues and no two cases are the same. Each is considered on their own merits.

Sbotts

dunstonh wrote: »

Errors do not automatically result in redress. Most commonly they result in a goodwill gesture of £250.

I had a client where the pension provider gave the wrong value for 15 years and the person retired and moved house on that basis. Error was found the value was 1/10th. Pension providers apologised and offered £250. FOS looked at it and said £400. This was mainly as one of the couple died during the process and the other party said it was due to the stress of the pension. The FOS said that they should have known there was an issue and been more proactive in resolving it.

There are a few issues that you would need to overcome.
1 - why were the tenants, when there was some, not passing mail to you?
2 - when it was empty, why were you not seeing the mail when you did your visits to the property?
3 - knowing that you were having extreme difficulty with the financials, why did you not question the lack of communications?

An error by one party does not automatically mean you get bucketloads of cash thrown at you. There has to be a cause and effect. i.e If you knew about the repossession order would it have made any difference? Probably not. You had no tenants. it was not up for sale. No indication that you were doing anything to mitigate the losses.

Whereas, if you had it up for sale at a quick price sale and had interested parties then it would be a very different matter. a) it shows you were doing something to mitigate losses b) time would make a difference c) the repossession may not have been necessary.

You didn't pay the mortgage. Did the failure to change the address have any impact on the repayments to the mortgage? No. So, the outcome would still have been the same.

Nobody here has the audit trail of events or the issues and no two cases are the same. Each is considered on their own merits.

Thank you for the detailed response. It's incredibly helpful.

I am not looking for bucket loads of cash, far from it. Unfortunately, I could not afford the mortgage and was struggling. At the hearing, I would've asked the judge for time to attempt to find a buyer myself and time to clear the property which would give me a much lower mortgage balance. The judge could've either granted it or declined - we'll never know but I should've had the chance according to the gov.uk website.

Thank you for your comments on this. Incredibly interesting

Thrugelmir

Sbotts wrote: »

At the hearing, I would've asked the judge for time to attempt to find a buyer myself and time to clear the property which would give me a much lower mortgage balance. The judge could've either granted it or declined - we'll never know but I should've had the chance according to the gov.uk website.

Read your mortgage contract. The lender was only seeking the remedy contained within following your default. Odds on that they followed due legal process. The fact you weren't living there. Nor seemingly go to even collect the mail suggests you had little time for the property.