In their current lending criteria TMW do not allow 2nd charge loans. Our original lender DHLL did allow 2nd charge loans. TMW are refusing to allow us to take out a 2nd charge loan even though it is with another lender, because it does not conform to TMW current lending criteria. We have never signed a new agreement with TMW or received any notification from them that our T & C's have changed. We have asked them for any paperwork that supports their stance and the reply from TMW was: "This is DHLL Account on which registering 2nd charges aren't within our policy. When the DHLL mortgage book was taken over by TMW the Terms & Conditions fell inline with ours. The Manager has stated we didn't need to provide you with paperwork to support this" We don't understand how this can be the case? If it were, then it makes a mortgage contract a totally useless document?

We wanted to take out a secured loan to carry out essential home improvements. This we were able to do under DHLL. TMW inform us that we now have to comply with their current lending criteria which does not allow 2nd charge loans. As TMW are an unregulated lender unable to facilitate further borrowing on a residential property, we found a lender who is happy to lend as a 2nd charge. I have a copy of our original mortgage offer which sets out that our rights will not change if our mortgage was sold on or administered by another lender. I also have a copy of DHLL lending criteria applicable at the time we took out our mortgage.

Thank you dx100uk for your response. No we have never signed a new agreement. Our mortgage is the same as we took out in 2006. TMW insist we now have to comply with their lending criteria and they do not have to provide us with proof that this is so

In July 2011 the administration of our regulated residential mortgage was transferred from Derbyshire Home Loan to unregulated Buy to Let lender The Mortgage Works. The Mortgage Works claim our rights under our original mortgage have gone and we have to abide by The Mortgage Works Terms and Conditions. Does anyone have any knowledge that this is correct? Any views very welcome!

Hi Thanks for replying. The debt is mine but I wondered if someone else can now take over the CCJ without applying to the court and whether they can start adding more costs and fees to a court arrangement agreed? Meerkat One

Hello I wonder if anyone can help me - I have a CCJ for Hewittsons solicitors relating to school fees for United Church Schools Trust. I have made the monthly payments agreed under the CCJ for the last 4 years. Two weeks ago I received a letter from Redwood Collections informing me they had now been instructed to recover the debt. There was no statement, letter of transfer or any paperwork to support their claim. This letter informed me that I was to cease payments to Hewittsons immediately and send payments to Redwood. I didn't respond as I expected to receive some sort of notification letter from Hewittsons that this was the case. Nothing has been received from Hewittsons. This weekend I received another letter from Redwood which was very threatening informing me that I am incurring costs which they will seek to recover and will institute bankruptcy proceedings plus all costs etc. Strangely, at the bottom of the letter they print a statement - "Our company has the sole control of your account. Payment must be sent to this office. DO NOT PAY A DOORSTEP COLLECTOR, without first gaining our authority." Redwood still did not provide any supporting paperwork, just these threatening letters. I have continued to pay Hewittsons under my CCJ agreement. I wondered if anyone could give me any advice before I make contact with anyone. Many thanks Simples

I don't know if this is of any interest but I challenged MX over who was legally authorised to instruct LPA Receiver as I discovered the person who signed mine was an Admin assistant and did not have POA. I got my properties back.

Hello All I have been away for some time and catching up on thread I am horrified things are still going MX's way. I don't know if there is anything I can help with other than to offer support but if I can I would be very happy to join in. Meerkat One

I am not entirely sure but I understood that if a lender was acting as mortgagee in possession they would have to apply to the Court to gain possession to then sell. The lenders use lpa receivers to avoid this as you can go to court to delay, offer payment arrangements etc etc. However, it is then up to the lpa receiver to make the judgement on whether a property must be sold if it does not pay it's way or is too costly. A lender should not interfere with the lpa receivers's decision. By influencing them they are by passing the court process and is not the legal way to proceed in a repossession.

Hi tarquin999 Are Chelsea acting as Mortgagee in Possession? It sounds as though they are instructing the Receiver is this correct?

Hi m3car Securitisation is when a lender sells on a bunch of mortgages and then uses the funds raised to lend again. Whoever purchases the mortgages now owns the loans and very often the lender becomes the Administrator. In the case of MEX we are interested to know who owns our loans and thus who is legally able to appoint lpa receivers. In your case, when were lpa receivers instructed? Autumn 2008? Have you SAR MEX and Touchstone? On what grounds are Touchstone selling property if it is tenanted? Regards Meerkat One

Hi All Just catching up and I am so sorry to hear all these horror stories. I know CHL securitised and I will try and find out more. I am also working on MEX securitised loans. Marley 1 could you try and pm again? It is interesting to note that MEX are now attempting to shift the blame for instant remortgages to solicitors they claim misled them. In my day the BDM's would push next day remortgages - a major selling point in purchasing BMV properties. I fail to see how the Executive team at MEX claim they knew nothing about the practice when all their employees were perfectly aware. The Executive team were perfectly aware and if they were not then they were clearly not doing their job properly and could be accused of corporate negligence. The timescales all fit when the mortgage lenders started panicking at the end of 2007 beginning 2008 and mortgage deal interest rates were rapidly increasing. MEX did not withdraw their instant remortgage facility until May 2008 and all brokers were given notice this was being withdrawn - but they didn't know anything about it???? In order to help we need your individual situation please pm me. Regards Meerkat One

Hi Marley 1 I have sent you a PM Regards Meerkat One

Hi All I would challenge Chelsea. Certainly SAR them immediately and question charges, arrears, etc. Inform Allsopps that you are in dispute with Chelsea and until this is resolved then you do not recognise their appointment. In the meantime continue to manage the properties and make mortage payments etc. Allsopps should have informed you they had been appointed? They should have sent you a letter/deed of appointment by Chelsea. This is very important. It is also important to know who authorised the lpa and who signed the letter/deed. SAR the lpa receiver also. The information will allow you to know what has been going on previously. Regards Meerkat One

Hi Tarquin999 Have you got tenants in the properties now? Can I suggest you SAR MEX. This will give you an indication of whether they have started doing their homework re lpa's. In many cases they seek reports some months prior to appointing. If you are on your second chance then it would be worth seeing what their plans are. If you can keep the payments up you will save yourself all these terrible scenarios - and lpa's are truly terrible. They have no interest in assisting you. MEX are not landlords and most never have been - they do not really understand the market. Ask your Case Manager about LHA, tenancy agreements, court proceedures etc in dealing with tenants and properties - most likely they will not have a clue. You are best to go with your own instincts and keep a tenant in the property even at a lower rent.