1992 mortgage, repossession mess

davidmcn

t_in_atrance wrote: »

The lender did not provide the correct/ full contract documents to the court - front sheet only of a 3 page offer; copy of a deed apparently signed by us for the benefit of the Building Society which ceased to exist in Aug 2009

The fact the building society no longer exists is irrelevant, in case you thought that was somehow useful to you.

and a copy of mortgage Ts&Cs which we never received or knew of

So what's your argument about those? That there was an alternative set of Ts&Cs in place? That there weren't any Ts&Cs? Presumably the mortgage deed you signed makes reference to there being separate conditions? I think the lender could convincingly persuade the court that it would have been standard practice for them to be issued. What difference do the Ts&Cs make to what happened anyway?

and to establish whether the newly named lender has any legal entitlement to enforce the deed

You mean you're hoping to find some fundamental problem with the Co-op's takeover of the Britannia a decade ago? Something which the squadrons of lawyers involved had missed?

Brock_and_Roll

The mortgage was taken out with Britannia building society but in Aug 2009 they merged with Co-op Bank. Land registry shows Co-op as First charge but what action should they or Britannia have taken back then to re-assign the mortgage, and would that still apply in the case of a company merger (both "mutuals" if that makes a difference) which involved a huge number of mortgages?

I think I can answer that part. No assignment or re-assignment of the mortgage would have been required. Britannia voted to merge its assets & liabilities into those Coop Financial Services. Legally it remained the same entity. In any event, all mortgage contracts allow the lender (but not the borrower) to assign (equitably or legally) the contract without the consent of the borrower, and this can be disclosed or undisclosed. As such, seeing Coop on the Lang Registry looks correct.

t_in_atrance

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

The mortgage was taken out with Britannia building society but in Aug 2009 they merged with Co-op Bank. Land registry shows Co-op as First charge but what action should they or Britannia have taken back then to re-assign the mortgage, and would that still apply in the case of a company merger (both "mutuals" if that makes a difference) which involved a huge number of mortgages?

I think I can answer that part. No assignment or re-assignment of the mortgage would have been required. Britannia voted to merge its assets & liabilities into those Coop Financial Services. Legally it remained the same entity. In any event, all mortgage contracts allow the lender (but not the borrower) to assign (equitably or legally) the contract without the consent of the borrower, and this can be disclosed or undisclosed. As such, seeing Coop on the Lang Registry looks correct.

Thank you so much, I thought there must be some reason allowing them to make the change, but I couldn't work it out. That's very useful - I can discard that line of action at least.

Thrugelmir

t_in_atrance wrote: »

I have tried to establish the status of the extention period, as the same terms & conditions continued but I think there needs to be some sort of change to have taken place to indicate that a new agreement should have been set up by them - like a further issue of cash by them. A change did occur - an interest rate increase - but I don't know if that would be sufficient to justify/ prove that a new agreement should have been set up by the lender.

You are in breach of contract. The lender at their discretion , and in the broader remit of having a duty of care towards their customers, granted you an additional period of time to resolve the issue. This period has lapsed. Your failure to take any form of positive action leaves the lender little alternative.

You'll soon lose the sympathy vote if you cast dispersations as to the lenders behaviour and their lenders practices. As seems little more than an attempt to dig yourselves in.

Time would be better spent planning for the future. Marketing the property etc. Judges enforce the law. They have little desire to waste their time presiding over a witch hunt.

t_in_atrance

davidmcn wrote: »

The fact the building society no longer exists is irrelevant, in case you thought that was somehow useful to you.


I believe it is relevant. If a company no longer exists it cannot enforce a deed. The company would have to be re-established in order to press the deed. Reading another poster's reply it seems it will not apply in my own case for the reason he gave.


So what's your argument about those? That there was an alternative set of Ts&Cs in place? That there weren't any Ts&Cs? Presumably the mortgage deed you signed makes reference to there being separate conditions? I think the lender could convincingly persuade the court that it would have been standard practice for them to be issued. What difference do the Ts&Cs make to what happened anyway?


Yes, that is it exactly - other Ts&Cs set out in the offer, and absolutely no mention in any correspondence about another set of ts&cs - except one line on the deed, hidden as 5th of 6th items.


You mean you're hoping to find some fundamental problem with the Co-op's takeover of the Britannia a decade ago? Something which the squadrons of lawyers involved had missed?


No, that's daft! My interest is whether they did what they were legally required to do in respect of the deed on my home.

Thanks for your time, it's all useful stuff in unknitting our mess.

silvercar

What plans did you have for repaying the mortgage at the end of its term:

a) when you took it out in 1992
b) in 2017.

I have an interest only mortgage and the lender writes regularly reminding that you need a plan on how you are going to repay the capital at the end of the term.

silvercar

Thinking back, I moved home Winter 1992/93. Took an interest only mortgage and the lender insisted on some repayment vehicle being in place. Back then an endowment policy was sufficient. Did your lender require some repayment policy? endowment/ pension/ savings schedule??

t_in_atrance

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are in breach of contract. The lender at their discretion , and in the broader remit of having a duty of care towards their customers, granted you an additional period of time to resolve the issue. This period has lapsed. Your failure to take any form of positive action leaves the lender little alternative.

You'll soon lose the sympathy vote if you cast dispersations as to the lenders behaviour and their lenders practices. As seems little more than an attempt to dig yourselves in.

Time would be better spent planning for the future. Marketing the property etc. Judges enforce the law. They have little desire to waste their time presiding over a witch hunt.

Ok, thanks for that. But if you had the opportunity to read all the correspondence and knew the full details you might feel differently.



We aren't looking for sympathy, we're looking for help to handle the situation we find ouselves in. We can't even get Legal Aid under new rules, and solicitors want their bills paid now, not 6 months down line when we actually have the money to pay them, from the sale of the house.



There has been no intention to dig ourselves in.

We have been trying for a number of years to establish with them the true amount of the debt, only to be met with oblique responses, if any responses at all. Even applying via SARs has met with obstruction and breach by them. Why would an organisation continually with-hold information, if not to conceal their activities and practices in order to get away with perhaps over charging and who-knows-what else?


There are ways and means of doing things, and there are people with even less ability than us to deal with such things - why do think there are so many people living on the streets these days, or feel their only way out is to top themselves / their kids / their spouse?



But thanks anyway.

t_in_atrance

silvercar wrote: »

What plans did you have for repaying the mortgage at the end of its term:

a) when you took it out in 1992
b) in 2017.

I have an interest only mortgage and the lender writes regularly reminding that you need a plan on how you are going to repay the capital at the end of the term.

Hi, thanks for replying.


In 1992 an endowment was taken out - both fully employed then.

At a point after we'd each become ill and finances became a problem, the policy was thrown in as we couldn't afford it. After that the mis-selling of policies was investigated by FSA/FCA, and as it turned out, our policy wouldn't have covered what they promissed anyway etc. We received some comp for that, but it soon whittled away on bills. We were too ill to cope with selling up and moving, and there was no help available. With no kids or pensioners in our care we didn't qualify for any financial or other help. As i mentioned in another post, we were very relieved that the lender was willing to provide an extention, but it soon all turned sour.

TrickyDicky101

You mention about the 'true amount of the debt' - have you not been receiving annual statements from the lender detailing what the debt is?