Repossession

bigruss

why would i sell my house ...... and why would i want a bogus credit ref ?????

bigruss

Thanks defender i have not had a letter from Court saying my wife dose not need to attened what should i do she cant go to this hearing i sent a letter over a week ago??
Under section 2 and 5 of the Act 1980 what act is this ??the company in Drydens acting on behalf of Bradford & Bingley ?? any help please i am in court in the morning##

bigruss

where can i get a copy of the the Limitations Act 1980

bigruss

We therefore conclude that in other than exceptional cases (which we cannot, at present, envisage), claims for a mortgage debt will be governed by section 20 of the Limitation Act even if the mortgagee has exercised his power of sale before he issues proceedings. That means that he has twelve years from the accrual of the cause of action to sue for the principal of the debt but only six years to sue for interest. That will mean that Mr Brock’s otherwise forceful arguments as to anomaly, if section 8 applies, will fall away but that mortgagees will have to be aware of the different provisions of the Act as to interest. This difference has existed since 1833; it must have been what Parliament then intended and also intended at the time of the 1980 re-enactment.

dose these mean that i can only be sued for the shortfall and not the interest after 6 years?????

bigruss

any help please am in court in the morning

defender_of_the_weak

Big russ

Please see the quote from a friend of mine regarding legal help


'You could try Kate Hopkins at Donns Law in Manchester although it's a tough one. The problem with mortgage arrears is that limitation doesn't quite work that way. Only arrears more than six years old are time-barred.

The simple message is that yes, he should turn up with his wife. He should also contact the local and national press and invite them to join him for his day in court.

Given that the action is being taken by Braford & Bingley I would definetely invite the press to attend

Ask to get the previous ruling thrown out unless they can prove the source of funds. assuming they can not then it is more than 12 years since the event of the priciple debt .

If this is accepted then the argument for interest should also fail, or at least any interest more than 6 years old.

bigruss

thanks for this will give the press a call now and see if i can get someone to come to Court , best start getting the wife ready god knows what this will do to her , the stress of this and my wifes illness is starting to get to me ........thanks for all your help defender will let you know how i go on

Russ :-(

bigruss

thanks for this will give the press a call now and see if i can get someone to come to Court , best start getting the wife ready god knows what this will do to her , the stress of this and my wifes illness is starting to get to me ........thanks for all your help defender will let you know how i go on

Russ :-(

bigruss

Hiya been to Court today and was told to pay £15.00 per month ??? any advise

Freddie_Snowbits

You have a number of choices to make and I think you should seek professional advice. I am only a lounge lawyer.

1. You could completely ignore it in the hope that it will go away

2. You could pay up

3. You could learn to negotiate and make an offer!

4. Do none of the above.