House Repossessed + £96k debt - Update

magicdogsbrain

Im not an expert but I thought it was possible to file for bankrupsy and just walk away - am I wrong?

Tesco_points_addict

Would it not be a good idea to take this to someone like 'Watchdog' surely they (the lenders) would not like the publicity and it would be free for you and hopefully get you a difinitive answer into the rights and wrongs of the case?
TPA x

Floxxie

ekimnas wrote: »

Payments of £325 are taken from our wages every month by court order.The court have been in touch requesting a statement of means. I have refused because the West Brom have refused consistently to reply to my requests for an outstanding balance. I have been told that I may go to prison if I refuse the information - that is fine by me as it would be great publicity !!

My parents are also in the same situation as you. They accept that they lost their house because they defaulted on their mortgage. They are now paying back an amount per month as WBBS refused a final settlement, but they have no idea how much is outstanding and if interest is being added onto this amount. They have repeatedly asked WBBS for a statement and have been ignored.

I think for any of us, not knowing how much of the debt you have to pay back and realising that it will die with you, is not a position we expect to be in, when all around us people seem to be winning their battles with companies etc.

Does anybody have any knowledge/comments on the absence of 'repayment' statements once a house has been repossessed (this was in the early 1990s)?

This thread might be more appropriate on the DFW board so apologies...

Floxxie

silvercar

I think for any of us, not knowing how much of the debt you have to pay back and realising that it will die with you, is not a position we expect to be in,

This is going to hurt:

If the lender is charging their standard variable rate, on an outstanding debt of £96,000, £325 per month is not even paying the interest.

If the lender is still charging interest (and I can't see anywhere that they wouldn't be) the debt will actually still be growing.

If they are not charging any interest it would take 24 years to clear the debt.

homer_j_3

Floxxie wrote: »

My parents are also in the same situation as you. They accept that they lost their house because they defaulted on their mortgage. They are now paying back an amount per month as WBBS refused a final settlement, but they have no idea how much is outstanding and if interest is being added onto this amount. They have repeatedly asked WBBS for a statement and have been ignored.

I think for any of us, not knowing how much of the debt you have to pay back and realising that it will die with you, is not a position we expect to be in, when all around us people seem to be winning their battles with companies etc.

Does anybody have any knowledge/comments on the absence of 'repayment' statements once a house has been repossessed (this was in the early 1990s)?

This thread might be more appropriate on the DFW board so apologies...

Floxxie

Your parents may be able to take legal action against the lender. The majority of repossessions in the 90's have been identified as illegal. The cost of which to the lender will mean that your parents could be in a considerably better situation.

Floxxie

Thanks Homer. I suppose my thinking is along the lines of illegality as no statements are being produced, my parents have no idea how much is o/s etc. etc.but I do not know if it is illegal on 'old' cases?

Where would I find out about 'illegal' possessions? I noted that WBBS had lost a case about their 12 year limitation period but they had also won the right to appeal, so I don't know if they won that case.

By the way, my parents did take legal advice at the time and were told to go bankrupt which was not an option. Nobody else was interested in taking on their case. Now, they would not be interested in broadcasting their plight as the stigma of losing a house is very fresh in their minds.

Floxxie

homer_j_3

There are some proven laws that will determine the legality of the repossession.

Some are around flawed contracts and others are about secret commissions. There are other arguments that I have not been made privy too so cannot comment on that.

Your parents need proper legal help to get this sorted. Lenders will fob you off if they think they can get away with it.

neverdespairgirl

homer_j wrote: »

The ones that I am not aware of is purely to protect the company that offers this service as I believe this is the "biggie" laws would mean that they lose commercial advantage.

The laws that I am aware of are to do with hidden commissions and also flawed contracts. The information and research carried out by this company state that there is a very good chance that any house repossessed in the early 90's will have been done so illegaly due to laws of our country and as a result, there will be justice for the borrower as such.

Eh? I don't understand a word of that, to be honest.

Nor do I think it is remotely ethical for a company / lawyer / etc to say, "we know case law / methods / routes of getting you what you want, but we ain't gonna tell you *anything* until you sign on the dotted line......"

neverdespairgirl

*MF* wrote: »

@ ekimnas

I am posting the link below - not in the certain knowledge that it will apply by any means - but in the hope that that those involved may be able to point you in a direction that may help, even if they cannot::

http://www.barprobono.org.uk/

The Bar Pro Bono unit is great - I do some work through them, as does my OH.

You do need to be referred to it by someone, though, such as a solicitor, CAB, law centre, etc.

homer_j_3

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Eh? I don't understand a word of that, to be honest.

Nor do I think it is remotely ethical for a company / lawyer / etc to say, "we know case law / methods / routes of getting you what you want, but we ain't gonna tell you *anything* until you sign on the dotted line......"

What I am saying is that

Proven case law in terms of secretary of state vs wilson (or vice versa) is the law which can be argued for unenforceable contracts under CCA 1974.

Wilson and another Vs Hurstnger Ltd is another case which proves that a secret commission can make a loan voidable.

I fail to see where it is unethical to offer a free service for consumers to gain legal help to get what is rightfully theirs. The fact that they do not want to give all of their legal arguments away is not unethical. Its commercialism. The company have spent 6 years putting their systems together, taking the legal arguments through expensive legal firms to check their arguments. Spent a lot of time gaining funding for consumers like these poor people to actually have a chance of getting back what is lawfully and rightfully theirs.

There is no legal aid for these people since the people like claims direct started putting fraudulent claims in to the system and highlighted that there were insufficient processes in place to make sure that this did not happen. Access to Justice rules have allowed this company to ensure that they can offer this service for free and with no cost to the client unless they pull out after litigation has started or they accept a deal directly from the lender without the solicitors knowing.

There is nothing secretive about the service, nothing hidden in what is going to happen. The claimant allows the company to request the SARN details. This company employs forensic and auditing techniques to assess the claim. The claim is then checked against the specific calculators and then the lawyers are consulted for them to confirm that there is a case to be answered. It is only at this point will anybody sign anything.

Now, lets look at some of the competitors who charge £495 for their service. They used the company I refer to at the very start. That is unethical because the company did not charge their competitor a penny to use them to process their claims yet this company has taken £495 from an awful lot of people. I was led to believe from an ex rep of this company that this fee was broken down or justified in the following way:

£350 for insurance (which was not needed as the company they were referring to are fully insured by the banks own insurers that fund them).
£125 for the rep who has just unknowingly duped you into paying it
£20 for the company admin etc.

It is believed from the cases that have been brought over from ex reps of this company that 50% of the claims they said had a claim, did not have a claim. Now this could be exagerated by this company but I have no reason to believe this is the case when everything else I have seen appears to be very honest and ethical.