MTM - The following was written when in a strop, which I then put to one side so I could calm down and may now have been overtaken by comments by bookworm - I just daren't look at it again for fear of giving myself an apoplectic fit! I agree with some if not all of your comments, although you would be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't strive to own their own house, as the step change in cutural perception, brought about through Thatcher's "Right to Buy" policies which actively sought to increase home ownership, means people who rent are somehow seen as "2nd class citizens". Whilst I myself see renting as "dead money", I sometimes wonder why I bother to strive for property ownership - at the end of the day the lenders and government are the only winners....interest on loans, which they pay tax on, tax on building land, stamp duty on buying, Inheritance tax when you die....do not be surprised if we have to start paying capital gains taxes on the "profit" realised from an increase in the value of your main home when the market recovers.... Taking away responsibility for housing stock from the councils (often selling off housing to the HAs for as little as £1), whilst leaving them legally responsible for housing was a nightmare in the making and the Housing Associations become yet another layer of bureaucracy (and salaries) answerable to central government (albeit through The Housing Corporation) rather than local government. Thus creating a divisive element with the Council's not being in control, yet legally responsible. Volume house builders have to either offer affordable housing on their new developments or pay a planning "fine" through section 106 agreements - which often result in a cash payment that is not ring fenced for housing - why - because the council's don't build houses anymore - rather than more affordable housing - with a NIMBY approach or a worry that "affordable housing" on the same development reduces the sale prices and impacts on desirability. Just examples of short term goals over long term planning winning out. And whoever approved the shared equity schemes wants their heads looking at....I first came across this back in the early 90s whilst living in London - the amount paid in rent on the portion that you didn't buy was often more than the equivalent mortgage payment - imo trapping people in a vicious circle because even though the value of the property would rise, as property always does eventually, the only way of making it work in terms of the increased property value providing a downpayment for a full mortgage meant that: a. this could only be achieved by buying in a cheaper area - thus destroying communities; b. the "shared ownership" properties were now out of the reach of the people originally intended to benefit c. for some of the schemes there was no requirement to sell at a "below the market value" to enable people on low incomes to step onto the ladder. The governments both past and present have a lot to answer for in terms of their social housing and residential planning policies over the last 40 years....from someone looking in on the outside it would appear that their policies have done everything in their power to destroy communities (think high rise blocks of the 60s), create a social underclass (those in rented accommodation) and activiely increase the value of land through Prescott's minimum number of properties per acre - which rather than decreasing the cost of housing, only served to raise the value of the land as previsouly a council could deny planning permission for large scale development - until Prescott stuck his nose in! I have been to the council with a friend who was made homeless, she had 3 kids in tow aged 2 to 15 and the council treated her like dirt - they did not believe her story (spousal abuse) and kept her waiting ALL day to eventually give her a room in a hostel in the end she begged and borrowed enough to find her own deposit and then went into privately rented accommodation because there was a six month waiting list for a council controlled house - ok, this was 10 years ago, but the memory still smarts. And one final point....how the government could shore up the banks with their latest "loan" without making them agree to certain conditions, such as lowering rates, not increasing costs for borrowers or more lenient conditions for those in arrears is beyond me....a fund to which home owners in dire circumstances could turn to in return for a buy backable (sorry not sure if this is a real word) percentage in their home, or guaranteed deductions from wages would have been preferable...Maybe I am idealistic...I will be monitoring the investors dividends very closely!! Apologies to all.....rant over. Jody

Hi Tills, toy Boy material by any chance?! Jody

Hi Tilly, This must be devastating news for you. I would recommend getting at least another two valuations, whilst at the same time going back to the guys who have just valued the property and ask for justification for their reasons on why it is so low....whilst pointing out recent sales prices for similar properties in your street/area. Given that you have had the valuation and there would be a very large shortfall given current market conditions would you not be able to go to the possession hearing, with a. plan of how you could reduce your debt (lodger/ moving into rented accommodation yourself and renting the property out to cover the mortgage?); and b, a plea to the judge that the mortgage company reassess the situation and allow you to repay the accumulated mortgage debt over the rest of the mortgage term, whilst keeping up the current payments, to allow you to remain in the property Whilst pointing out that the non-payments were due to circumstances beyond your control and to repossess and sell now would not only leave you homeless, but also destitute and probably bankrupt. Just a thought and understand if you want to walk away now rather than staying on to fight....at the end of the day you have to do what will allow you to retain some semblance of sanity....difficult I would imagine given everything in your thread. I live by the motto that everything happens for a reason - we might not know what that reason is at the time, but when the reason becomes evident it will all fall into place (and mines a g n t when you win the euro lottery). You never know that toy boy might be just around the corner... Keep your chin up. Jody.

bump - anyone have any thoughts?? Jody

Hi Tide, I've replied...sorry - was a long rant too! Jody

Hi Tide Trolls indeed - just had call from sols about my mates offer - amongst other things....they are definitely reading these pages.... Question - did you ask for a transcript of your case - or is there anywhere I could get a copy of it to cite for my mates defence? Jody

JonCris, Thanks for the link - interesting reading. Does anyone know of any current cases where Estoppel by Representation or Promissory Estoppel are being used based on the CML signature to the Code of Conduct? Having spoken with a few people it would appear that this is a potentially good defence.... Anyone else have any thoughts?? Jody

From my understanding a lender claims on behalf of an insurer as they have the same rights as the lender - and then pays any money back - although it is my contention that this MIG was insurance to cover costs associated with recovery of the property - not any captial or interest as according to the statements the MIG paid out the difference between the "loss on the account" and the amount owed i.e. 15 owed, 10, loss, 5 associated costs - 5 paid out on MIG - hence why I believe that this is subject to 6 year limitation rule and not 12 for mortgages.... If the judge does not rule out the claim on Estoppel and I prove the underselling and the MIG as a standard contract then the lender will end up owing my mate 2.5K plus interest - plus the 2k worth of shares that they didn't bother to tell him he was entitled to due to his mortgage account being in arrears when the shares were issued - plus all the associated dividends for the last 11 years!! Jody

hhhmmmmm - there is a box on the application that says sickness and unemployment cover for £200 per month - but don't know whether this is the so called MIG, or whether that is the Xtra Cover... As my mate didn't know the house had been repo'd then he presumably has 6 years from when they told him of the shortfall debt...guess I'm just going to have to start collecting case law for shortfall, caselaw for Estoppel. At least if it establishes or clarifies the cml's code of conduct "if we have not begun action within 6 years" of exactly what "action" means....as I would have thought that action would be court - not just a ruddy letter than anyone can type up and say was delivered! Jody

Hi MTM, Yes, I am aware of this case, but don't think that the Promissory estoppel/by Representation defence is being used here....well not yet! What I don't understand is why they don't go for a monetary judgement as soon as they know there is a shortfall.....with no statute of limitation of obtaining payment then there is no reason why the banks/bs shouldn't apply for the judgement....unless of course the shortfall is made up of underselling/illegal charges etc... Jody

n.b. we haven't put up the 6 year estoppel defence yet, as I've only just found out about it....anyone know how we amend a defence as we originally defended on a "prove it" basis as we didn't have any details of the underselling etc - which we only found out about through a SAR...

hi Tide, they contacted by letter, firm of sols, initially just asking for shortfall payment and then eventually saying they were acting on behalf of halifax. Not sure is statute barred as not yet 12 years since they say was repo'd - although considering defence of Estoppel by Representation as they are signators to the cml code of conduct - and certainly time barred for the MIG as it paid the costs of recovery, not the mortgage itself!!! Without going to court and proving underselling - which is was by 12K - we made a "without prejudice offer" in full and final without liability offer to settle based on what they could potentially win, if the Defence of Estoppel by Representation failed, but they didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge - so....we are going to court and will now put up defence as above...we cannot afford the 23k they are demanding anyway, so have nothing to lose really. I believe this will be the first case where the 6 year cml signature is questioned, so we may yet set a precedent if the judge agrees that they can't claim - which would be fantastic news for all other people that are in similar boats... Jody

Hi Tide, as far as we know there was no money judgement order....according to the sols the house was repo'd in 1999 and sold - they contacted in 2007 saying "pay this shortfall debt or we make you bankrupt" Not altogether clear on what relevance the money judgement order has - just that they have now issued a claim for the shortfall - would that be the money judgement order? Or is a money judgement order something different? Jody

Hi All, Just a brief update and a little guidance for anyone in the same situation of non contact for over 6 years and prior to a claim being issued.... COMPLAIN TO THE FOS ASAP The FOS will not look at a complaint once a claim has been issued, so complain straight away...do NOT wait. The case is now going to court and we are awaiting court directions. We are still waiting on paperwork which has been requested since early 2007 and is not yet forthcoming and I've just gone back to the lender as they sent info under a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and now that its going to court I've had to wade through it all - to discover that there are pages missing in the middle of documents. If anyone has copies of the Halifax mortgage terms and conditions for 1990, 1991 and 1992 I would appreciate a copy - we were sent a "copy" for 1990, even though the mortgage was taken out in 1991 and then put into a sole name in 1992 - but it appears to be a composition of two different documents - something that we will be bringing to the attention of the judge when we get there...amongst other things Hey ho - its off to court we go.... Jody

Also, does anyone know how to check for monetary judgements over six years old? Jody

Hi Tide, nuts - my subscribed threads can't be working as it didn't show your thread updated.... But seriously well done....it is a victory that they aren't chasing you for the shortfall. Is there any way of finding out whether a money order judgement has been obtained even if it was over six years ago? Well done, and I look forward to round 3! Jody

Tide, Any chance on an update to your thread? Regards, Jody

As we all know the lenders are flouting their signature to the CML code of conduct by contacting people after the 6 years and asking for the shortfall back....Anyone have any thoughts on the defence of Estoppel by Representation of Fact... Estoppel by representation of fact Estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower. This species of estoppel is also referred to as "common law estoppel by representation" in Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 16(2), 2003 reissue. In The Law relating to Estoppel by Representation, 4th edition, 2004 at para I.2.2, Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows: where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto. or alternatively - promissory estoppel: Promissory estoppel requires (1) an unequivocal promise by words or conduct, (2) a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise (not necessarily to their detriment), (3) inequity if the promisor was to go back on the promise. I'd be interested in people's views. Jody

To get in as much money as they could before they were told to stop because it is illegal - there are ALWAYS less people that claim, than who pay and never query! Jody

Misleading - they are all at it....for those of us fortunate enough to have any money sitting around to save the HSBC are offering interest on their "Bank Account Plus" @ 8%.... fantastic I hear you all shout, except the max is £1000 and it costs £12.50 per month to administer the account - hhhmmm £80 interest per year.....£150 per year to keep your money in there....so your £1000 is now worth exactly £930....

Hi Lotuselite, I would SAR the Nat West whilst you are at it - there may be charges in there that could be offset against their claim. And if you can spare another £10 I would SAR the solicitors too! Make it clear that you want ALL information held on you - not just for the two accounts. Personally I don't see how they can bring two separate claims for the same accounts in two different names without stating "jointly and severally" liable in the claim form....otherwise its unjust enrichment on the banks behalf and you should be asking for either a dismissal or a set aside. Jody

Hi, I've just been on the website and you need a solicitor or an advice agency (CAB etc) to apply on your behalf - they can download the application form, but will need all of your paperwork so they can guage whether or not they can help you - they will only consider your case if you are NOT entitled to legal aid and you cannot afford to pay. Hope that helps Jody

Hi D&D, Have you actually checked that the amount f interest charged was indeed 80% - and not 57.26 - also is there any way to find out what the interest should have been on the type of loan they had converted your 'debt' to...any chance it could have been 22.24% ? Jody

Maybe its World Record for highest interest Rate. Seriously though I find these two entries very very disturbing...Whole R**** - Whole Rate, Whole Record maybe Are there no former employees, or indeed current ones, that could explain what a WR is?

Hi D & D, Gosh - what an awful mess - as if you didn't have enough on your plate when things went t*ts up with the business.... Something struck me as odd when I read posts in page 1 and page 3, I have repeated them out of sequence here to see whether anyone else spots a connection or whether I am just being paranoid!!!!.... Post 45 - Unexplainable (by the banks) comment on "Diary Event History Log"is the first date, Post 20: Interest of 80% charged throughout 2000 and not spotted until 2001 is the second date.... 26/01/00: "Validation agreed - WR part funded 57.26%" 06/03/01: "...branch have incorrectly keyed 80% as opposed to 8% when carrying out validation" Sorry guys I do not believe in coincidences, I find it odd that they note in 2000 that validation is agreed and that the "WR" is part funded 57.26%, then throughout 2000 80% interest is charged....come on....they are trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes here..... I would be asking to see the auditors accounts particularly as 57.26% could not be explained away as a simple keying error...and I would be asking, and wracking my brains, as to what a WR could refer to.... Jody