Mortgage Repossession on an Inflated Debt Caused by Bank Errors

PennysIntoPounds

Might it be worth writing to the Money sections in the weekend papers? I think Guardian and Sunday Times have consumer champions sort of thing.
I'm sorry for your troubles, this sounds awful

Domsjo

PennysIntoPounds said:

Might it be worth writing to the Money sections in the weekend papers? I think Guardian and Sunday Times have consumer champions sort of thing.
I'm sorry for your troubles, this sounds awful

Thank you, yes its been a terrible low point. I just assumed there were mechanisms to protect ordinary people from this sort of conduct, finding out there isnt is crushing.

I think I will approach the consumer pages in the papers, though I got the impression from the first 2 hearings this is not an unusual case and its just normal process - a big mess, the bank says oops, shrug, and someones life is ruined. 

I didnt want to poke the bear because I thought there was a chance for genuine negotiation but yesterday I received a letter saying to ring them immediately - which I did and they wouldnt take my call, which was a big hint. 

silvercar

Domsjo said:

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

This feels more like a failure to fully understand the calculations rather than malign intent on the part of the lender unfortunately.

I'm not suggesting that there can never be mistakes, but what is described here would require a consistent repeated pattern of unfixed errors over what sounds like a long period of time.

Have you been able to have someone familiar with this type of financial product take a look at the details the lender has given to you?

It feels like it would be a better use of money than paying legal costs as it would either frame your complaint clearly, or prove to you that there is nothing wrong with their numbers...

Yes, there is a consistent repeated pattern of unfixed errors evidenced in their balances, miscalculation and my defence. Its why after 2 hearings the property hasnt been repossessed. 

The issue isnt that I cant prove it - I can. The problem is even if I prove it I am still liable for their legal bill which is really high. I dont have direct legal costs as Im litigant in person

Why are you liable if the lender has acted in error? Does the lender seriously expect a court to award then £100k legal costs for a £23k mortgage? Sounds like they are trying to intimidate you.

Yes, that how I feel about it, but its in the contract - any legal fees the borrower is liable for and technically there is a debt, and I'm not disputing there is money owed - I'm just disputing the amount, which they say is immaterial but to me everything rests on it. The fees feel very disproportionate to the debt and likely theyre are trying to discourage me from continuing my defence.

But then whats to stop them doing it again, if I enter into a new arrangement for whatever amount theyre currently seeking and theres a track record of fudged and inflated charges - I could be locked in for another 30 year cycle, with no real consumer protection. Seems unjust.

There must be a sense of reasonableness, any legal fees they incur that a court rules are excessive could be thrown out. It may even be an unfair contract term, if they are pursuing something following their own wrong doing. The ombudsman will expect them to treat customers fairly.

Domsjo

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

This feels more like a failure to fully understand the calculations rather than malign intent on the part of the lender unfortunately.

I'm not suggesting that there can never be mistakes, but what is described here would require a consistent repeated pattern of unfixed errors over what sounds like a long period of time.

Have you been able to have someone familiar with this type of financial product take a look at the details the lender has given to you?

It feels like it would be a better use of money than paying legal costs as it would either frame your complaint clearly, or prove to you that there is nothing wrong with their numbers...

Yes, there is a consistent repeated pattern of unfixed errors evidenced in their balances, miscalculation and my defence. Its why after 2 hearings the property hasnt been repossessed. 

The issue isnt that I cant prove it - I can. The problem is even if I prove it I am still liable for their legal bill which is really high. I dont have direct legal costs as Im litigant in person

Why are you liable if the lender has acted in error? Does the lender seriously expect a court to award then £100k legal costs for a £23k mortgage? Sounds like they are trying to intimidate you.

Yes, that how I feel about it, but its in the contract - any legal fees the borrower is liable for and technically there is a debt, and I'm not disputing there is money owed - I'm just disputing the amount, which they say is immaterial but to me everything rests on it. The fees feel very disproportionate to the debt and likely theyre are trying to discourage me from continuing my defence.

But then whats to stop them doing it again, if I enter into a new arrangement for whatever amount theyre currently seeking and theres a track record of fudged and inflated charges - I could be locked in for another 30 year cycle, with no real consumer protection. Seems unjust.

There must be a sense of reasonableness, any legal fees they incur that a court rules are excessive could be thrown out. It may even be an unfair contract term, if they are pursuing something following their own wrong doing. The ombudsman will expect them to treat customers fairly.

Thanks. This was my assumption right up until the second hearing (2 weeks ago). I still hold a bit of hope. The banks barrister insisted legal fees are in the contract, the judge said there was nothing he could do about it, which I just had to accept because my jaw was still on the floor. I dont have any prior experience with ombudsman and am not sure what to make of any of it. Every time I talk about it it sounds so ludicrous, which makes me think its not the norm

MWT

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Domsjo

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

silvercar

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

I would definitely pay what you think you owe. Then any repossession hearing becomes them taking action over an even smaller amount, making their projected legal costs even more disproportionate.

BikingBud

You mention co-signatory a few times, how have they managed to avoid their liabilities?

Domsjo

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

I would definitely pay what you think you owe. Then any repossession hearing becomes them taking action over an even smaller amount, making their projected legal costs even more disproportionate.

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

I would definitely pay what you think you owe. Then any repossession hearing becomes them taking action over an even smaller amount, making their projected legal costs even more disproportionate.

Thanks - I'm weighing this up as a serious option - it sounds so obvious, none of the agencies or advisors (legal, debtline) have floated this as an option, is there a risk I'm just not seeing? Financial risk is it leaves 0 assets to use for moving costs/rent deposits (maybe even the mediator bill!) if they still pursue repossession, but is there a procedural or legal risk I've not considered before I start a transfer?

silvercar

Domsjo said:

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

I would definitely pay what you think you owe. Then any repossession hearing becomes them taking action over an even smaller amount, making their projected legal costs even more disproportionate.

silvercar said:

Domsjo said:

MWT said:

The tricky part from what you've posted so far is clearly showing there have been mistakes made by the lender, and although that will help, failing to repay what you believe to be the correct amount still leaves the door open for them to claim reasonable legal costs.

Hope you can get a good outcome though...

Thank you. Yes youre right, while there is a clear paper trail of all their mistakes and misleading evidence, unfortunately they can still pursue their full claimed amount through court unless the true amount is agreed in writing - though this did make me consider if I should just ignore their rejection and pay them, see what happens?! 

Theres still mediation to thrash out any last options, and I can query if 100k is reasonable against the debt. You never know!

I would definitely pay what you think you owe. Then any repossession hearing becomes them taking action over an even smaller amount, making their projected legal costs even more disproportionate.

Thanks - I'm weighing this up as a serious option - it sounds so obvious, none of the agencies or advisors (legal, debtline) have floated this as an option, is there a risk I'm just not seeing? Financial risk is it leaves 0 assets to use for moving costs/rent deposits (maybe even the mediator bill!) if they still pursue repossession, but is there a procedural or legal risk I've not considered before I start a transfer?

I’m not a lawyer, but I can see a gain in keeping to what you think the original terms of the mortgage were.

The only downside I can see is if you went bankrupt after repossession, then your debt falls into your bankruptcy. So if you’ve paid money back that would have fallen into the bankruptcy, it’s money that you wouldn’t have needed to have paid. Though I suppose you would lose it in bankruptcy unless you could spend it in advance on essentials. And as you say, if you need that money for moving or rent it isn’t available to you if you’ve paid it over. Though you would end up needing to pay that part back in any circumstance eventually (other than bankruptcy).