Jansus, I would beware of the company that you've pointed out - we went to them when we first got court papers as we didn't know what to do and weren't aware of CAG - there were loads and loads of anomalies with what we had received from the solicitors, but we paid over the £200+ that the company required to make you a "member"- we sent them all the letters we had received - none of which proved we owed any money. They told us to pay up the full amount asked for stating that if the property had been undersold then the interest would cancel the underselling out..... needless to say we ignored them and went back to the solicitors ourselves - the company told us that as we had not taken their advice they could no longer have anything to do with the case (bye bye £200) and the case is due in court pretty soon - they asked for 15k - but it transpires that they undersold by 12k, there £1300 of fees that shouldn't be there and there's a mig for a further 5K. Whilst it would appear from their website that they have helped others - I wouldn't recommend them. Jody

Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) - Handling of Arrears and Possessions - CML Statement of Practice ok - I think that I have attached it to this post - it took me quite a while to find on the CML's site as the usual keyword searchs weren't throwing anything up.... Anyway - here it is now for all to see!!! Jody CML_MORTGAGE_COC.pdf

Tide, I understand completely - you get past the worry about what they could do to you and just want them to be "fair and just"....something we would all strive for in a perfect world... I have never, ever owed money, never fallen behind, and until I found this site whilst trying to help my friend, I was unaware of the despicable way in which some of the larger institutions behave towards people who for whatever reason fall into financial difficulty. Unless I've missed something, there is nothing to stop you filing a separate claim for your chattels / possessions - and if you win on that one then you have your cause of action for the appeal. Will have a look at some legals and let you know if I find anything of worth. Jody

Tide, I agree that you should see your solicitor next week - if only to set the appeal in motion. Not least because had there not been the illegal charges there would not have been a repossession and therefore its irrelevant that the charges cancel out the shortfall....without the illegal charges there would be no shortfall.... And then....I think you need a break - and I mean that with the greatest of respect for what you have so far achieved. If I were you I would have a week off - some you and your family time. And I don't necessarily mean from work, I mean from the site, get some rest, try to take your mind off this and for gods sake don't let it eat you up. After you've had your week - start by writing down your list of action....take the case law that you have (I'll see what I can find in the meantime) and order it in such a way that your solicitor has to do as little amount of work as possible. And then go get them...... Jody

Tide Sneaky t***ts aren't they?! Ok - so you can't have your charges, but you can claim that: repossession illegal because of all the charges (you are not therefore asking for the charges back - just to establish that their right of possession was illegal). if the repossession was illegal, then you have a right to be put back where you would have been had the possession not taken place (which must be around the £80+K mark now even had you paid the mortgage payments in the intervening years? Based on their illegal repossession you can claim for your chattels under the law of conversion or negligence or both?! At least that is what I would be arguing! Jody.

Tide I thought they had agreed not to pursue you for the shortfall....I wonder if that sets a precedent for other cases where they have not got an MJO? Any legal bagels know the answer?? Jody

Conversion (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For further definitions... Jody

In law, conversion is an intentional tort to personal property (same as chattel), where defendant's unjustified willful interference with the chattel deprives plaintiff of possession of such chattel. Plaintiff must have actual possession or an immediate right to possession at the time of the wrong. Absolute ownership is not necessary to establish standing to bring action. Interference in conversion means the exercise of dominion over another's chattel. Defendant must not have legal justification for such interference, and need only have intent to perform the act constituting interference. Intent to dispossess plaintiff of the chattel is not a required element of the claim. In other words, intentional removal of another's chattel under the mistaken belief that it belongs to the actor does not relieve actor of liability under conversion.

Tide, Have you looked at the law of Conversion with regard to your only being given an hour to get your stuff out?? Jody

bump Does anyone have a view on this?? Jody

Tide, I've sent you the stuff you need. Cheers, Jody

At least they told you about yours.... The second case posted above (Botham) is the one you want to use and quotes previous case law to the 1800s.... Jody

oh oh - way too technical for me mtm - but I'll see what I can do, assuming that I'm not flaunting any crown copyright! This link is worth following as its got general guidance on what is a fixture and fitting albeit in relation to tenancies... Seminar Notes 24.10.07 Surinder Bhakar Jody

hhmmm - re the shares - wonder if theres a case there for my mate - who had shares, but wasn't told about them - as they are now worth less than they were 11 years ago..... Jody

woo hoo I have the full case above, and another one on what classes as a fixture and fitting - Graham Charles Botham & Ors V TSB Plc (1996) I have full text for both cases in pdf or word format - what would be the best way of getting them to you?? Jody

Hi Tide, Are you looking for case law?? Try Clifford James Newbold 2007 re striking out of claim - I can give you a fully copy of the case if you want - am looking for some more now, but can you let me know if its case law you are looking for. Cheers, Jody

And make sure you do a good sales job - I found in the past that if you point out all the positives of the house and the area - schools, shops, neighbours etc., and then after you've shown them around let them have a look on their own... Jody

mtm - now you're just showing off!!! jody

bump

BBC NEWS | In Depth | UK House Prices | Newport its actually 9.7% change in the last quarter!! RSL - I actually looked into this when I was in London and had a property that I rented out when I was posted overseas...and at that time it was as simple as filling in a couple of forms with details of property and then...paying a fee to join!!! OK - it might have been 10 years ago, but nevertheless had I been willing to part with money I could be an RSL now. I can give you lots of examples where properties have been sold for £1 (have a degree in planning and residential development) - I can even give you a local example of a plot of land sold for £1 - they built social housing on the lower slopes and market value properties on the higher section - where they would get more money per flat because of the view! I don't "hate" labour - I come from "mining stock" where everyone always voted labour - it was only when I moved to London that I realised that labour stood for different things in different parts of the country. Mind I wouldn't vote labour either! Britain as a country might have had safe hands, but its people are the ones that suffer at those hands, and especially the lower paid...

Just a couple of points to come back to MrShed on my comments are in orange - I couldn't work out how to copy and past just the selected bits!!: And now I can't even work out how to make the colour difference work! Jody

its not that they don't see it looming, its that they don't do anything about it until it is an issue - and then they come back with half cocked measures.... As for RTB - it depends where the property - house or flat is - the former LA properties of Earlsfield in London are commanding higher prices than their turn of the century equivalents - because they were better built!! I couldn't even get on the housing list for Earlsfield and whilst I worked in Whitehall and could have had the opportunity of the RTB way back in the late 80s I was earning just £4K per year, so no chance of a mortgage, or saving up a deposit as I had exactly £32 per month to feed myself after rent, rates, utilities and travel!!!

MrShed, People live in 'poor areas" because they have to, not because they want to - and the fact that they hardly tended to utilise their RTB is not surprising....they can barely afford the rent let alone a mortgage. The fact that LA stock became skewed towards poorer areas is therefore to be expected - and historically the LAs answer to this was to knock down the existing housing stock and in the 60s build tower blocks - which disintegrated communities - and when these were pulled down they built large estates, which quickly turned into rat runs/sink estates where police wouldn't go, the vast majority of tenants were frightened and no-one had any sense of ownership - now we have "phased regeneration" where the houses are given new windows, new colour schemes on the outside which they can have a say and gardens all fenced in to give a sense of "ownership"....whilst on the inside there isn't enough money left to replace the 30 year old kitchens or bathrooms, but hey it looks nice and neat on the outside...and still nothing is done about the gangs of youths that gather and intimidate residents, or the dope dealer that the police are aware of, but are too busy chasing people they know are going to pay their fines for parking or whatever because they are law abiding citizens....the whole bloody country is in a mess, our social policies, our laws and their enforcement, our education system - it all needs a good shake up because we have become too politically correct and as a consequence too liberal and there is no such thing as respect anymore As an aside and whilst I'm ranting ...my partner had his jaw broken in two places by a 19 year old yob who decided to jump up and down on the bonnet of my car...for this, beating his girlfriend and intimidating witnesses he was given 12 months...he was out in 2 because the prison was too full. Where's the deterrant, where's the justice? A little kid threw rocks over the wall at our car, smashing our windscreen- he came back the next day to finish the job smashing the side windows - when we got hold of him and called the police (who the previous day had told us to detain him until they could get there) his cousin came around smashed my partner in the jaw (thankfully the titanium plate from the previous incident hurt him more than my partner) and told us he was going to come back with a gun and blow us all away...we let the kid go only to find his mother kicking on our front door, screaming and f'ing and blinding at the top of her voice two hours later complaining about getting her child into trouble. The police, well, they turned up the next day and when I asked why no one had come there and then as I was on the phone relaying everything that was said and done to the police they could only apologise - I asked whether that apology would have been good enough to my parents if the guy had come around and fulfilled his promise, or me if he had shot my son....when I asked what would be done with the child....nothing....he's not old enough to be prosecuted....who would pay for the replacement windscreen - his mother? No she is not legally responsible for him either until he's 10 years old. Its not just the housing policy, its not just the crime, its not just social policy its a combination of many things that have been allowed to escalate and deteriorate over the last 30 years....with no interdepartmental communications on how different policies will impact on other areas - the government all over - short term and lack of long term planning, rushed in to appease the nation when really the nation would be far better if somebody looked at the whole picture instead of guarding their back and their current position. MTM mentions the poll tax riots - I loved the idea of poll tax - it was one of the fairest taxes that has been brought in - it failed not because it wasn't any good - but because it was rushed in and ill-explained.... and now I need to stop ranting and get on with some work! Jody

...hit the wrong button...

hi MrShed, you are of course right - part of my word dyslexia - the thread was on equity hence the typo - and why point b mentions shared ownership. Jody