Hollyhocks Hi, I assume you have carried out a SAR on both LPA and lender? Have you reiterated to LPA that they owe you a duty of care? Can you show in any format that they are being directed by the lender? Who's the receiver? Can you afford to clear the arrears?

Hi Stevlynd, Remind them that if they are effectively working for you and to explain to you why they are not collecting rent. 1) How do you know they are not collecting rent? 2) Who are the LPA receivers? 3) Who is the bank?

MikeyM, Unfortunately this course of action was inevitable by an LPA receiver instructed by a state owned bank. As per my post number 19, this course of action would have helped you and the landlord. Have you sent a copy of your tenancy agreement to the LPA receiver? Is the tenancy agreement 6 months or 12months. Your last two posts seem at odds on the term. Are you still able to work with your landlord?

Update: URGENT INFO REQUIRED I went to Court and explained that I didn't have a breakdown of the figures claimed and disputed them. The Banks Solicitor said that it was an all monies charge. I pointed out that this was a commercial loan on a residential property. The Judge said words to the effect of 'it wasn't clear whether there is a monthly instalment and a covenant to discharge'. The Judge adjourned it for a longer hearing and gave me 14 days to file a formal defence and gave directions that the bank qualify the figures claimed. Any thoughts? Questions 1) As I rent part of the property ie the flat next door and it is on the same title does this therefore count as commercial and not residential? I would like as much input to the above questions so I know that when approaching a Solicitor that I am prepared and can ascertain that they are the right one for the job. 2) Where do I find a good specialist Solicitor clued up on repossession with an all monies charge? Thank you

Information for anyone else in my position, I have found this useful: Although some mortgages are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, most mortgage possession proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Administration of Justice Acts 1970 and 1973. Power to suspend or to delay date for possession At common law, "the court has no jurisdiction to decline to make a possession order or to adjourn the hearing, whether on terms of keeping up payments or paying arrears, if the mortgagee cannot be persuaded to agree to this course" (Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v Caunt [1962] Ch 883, ChD.) In Caunt Russell J stated that the sole exception to this rule is that possession proceedings "may be adjourned for a short time to afford the mortgagor a chance of paying off the mortgagee in full or otherwise satisfying him; but this should not be done if there is no reasonable prospect of this occurring. When I say the sole exception, I do not, of course, intend to exclude adjournments which in the ordinary course of procedure may be desirable in circumstances such as temporary inability of a party to attend, and so forth". (p912) However Administration of Justice Act 1970 s36(1) provides: Where the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling‑house brings an action in which he claims possession . . . (not being an action for foreclosure in which a claim for possession . . . is also made) the court may exercise any of [its] powers . . . if it appears to the court that in the event of its exercising the power the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage or to remedy a default consisting of a breach of any other obligation arising under or by virtue of the mortgage. Section 36(2) provides that the court: (a) may adjourn the proceedings, or (b) on giving judgment, or making an order, for delivery of possession . . . or at any time before execution of such judgment or order may: (i) stay or suspend execution of the judgment or order, or (ii) postpone the date for delivery of possession for such period or periods as the court thinks reasonable. The court's powers under s36 apply equally to repayment mortgages and endowment mortgages (Bank of Scotland v Grimes [1985] 2 All ER 254, CA). In Royal Bank of Scotland v Miller [2001] EWCA Civ 344, [2002] QB 255, CA it was held that (1) the relevant time for determining whether land consists of or includes a dwelling-house within the meaning of s36 is the time when the mortgagee claims possession, not the date when the legal charge is entered into; and (2) breach of a term of the mortgage (e.g. occupation by a third party without consent) does not prevent s36 from applying. The court's power under s36 to adjourn mortgage possession proceedings, stay or suspend execution or postpone the date for delivery of possession ceases after a warrant has been executed. (Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Obi (1996) 28 HLR 22, CA.) A bankrupt has locus standi to make an application to the court for relief under Administration of Justice Acts 1970 and 1973 (Nationwide BS v Purvis [1998] BPIR 625, CA). . Criteria and Evidence The borrower must, on the balance of probabilities satisfy the court that it is likely that the arrears will be cleared within a reasonable period. The court cannot suspend an order for possession under s36, however hard the circumstances, if there is no prospect of the borrower reducing the arrears. (Abbey National Mortgages v Bernard (1995) 71 P&CR 257, CA) The defendant need not always produce evidence in the normal formal sense (e.g. witness statement, affidavit or on oath). In Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Grant (1994) 26 HLR 703, CA where the building society unsuccessfully challenged the common practice of district judges exercising their discretion under AJA 1970 without hearing sworn evidence from borrowers, Nourse LJ stated that: "it must be possible for [judges] to act without evidence, especially where, as here, the mortgagor was present in court and available to be questioned and no objection to the reception of informal material is made by the mortgagee. Clearly, it will sometimes be prudent for the mortgagor to put in an affidavit before the hearing." (p707) The Court of Appeal declined to lay down rigid rules as to how "busy district judges" should satisfy themselves as to the requirements in s36 and upheld the original order made by the district judge that a possession order should not be enforced without leave of the court while regular payments were made. Reasonable period One crucial question which has to be answered in every case is "What is a reasonable period?" The phrase is not defined by the Administration of Justice Act. In Centrax Trustees v Ross [1979] 2 All ER 952, ChD, Goulding J stated that in assessing how long a reasonable period might be, the court must "bear in mind the rights and obligations of both parties, including [the lender's] right to recover their money by selling the property, if necessary, and the full past history of the security." In First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co Ltd v Cunningham (1974) 28 P&CR 69, CA, Scarman LJ, when considering what is a "reasonable period" within s36, stated: "since the object of the installment mortgage was, with the consent of the mortgagee, to give the mortgagor the period of the mortgage to repay the capital sum and interest, one begins with a powerful presumption of fact in favour of the period of the mortgage being the 'reasonable period'". (p75) In Western Bank v Schindler [1977] Ch 1; [1976] 2 All ER 393, CA Buckley LJ stated: "What must be reasonable must depend on the circumstances of the case. . . . In a suitable case the specified period might even be the whole remaining prospective life of the mortgage". ([1976] 2 All ER at p400) These passages were obiter but were followed by the Court of Appeal in Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 All ER 449, CA. Waite LJ stated that in determining "a reasonable period" "the court should take as its starting point the full term of the mortgage and pose at the outset the question: would it be possible for the mortgagor to maintain payment-off of the arrears by installments over that period?" (p458) In Norgan there had been a history of arrears. In May 1990, when arrears stood at £7,216, the building society obtained a possession order suspended for 28 days. In December 1990 the terms of the suspension were varied, but not complied with, and the building society obtained a warrant. The warrant was twice suspended on terms, but when the borrower failed to comply, the building society applied to reissue the warrant and the borrower cross–applied for a further suspension. The district judge gave leave to reissue the warrant and refused any further suspension. By the time the appeal came on before the circuit judge the arrears were in the region of £20,000. He dismissed the borrower's appeal and she appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal. Evans LJ set out a number of considerations which are likely to be relevant when establishing what is a reasonable period. They include: "(a) How much can the borrower reasonably afford to pay, both now and in the future? (b) If the borrower has a temporary difficulty in meeting his obligations, how long is the difficulty likely to last? © What was the reason for the arrears which have accumulated? (d) How much remains of the original term? (e) What are the relevant contractual terms, and what type of mortgage is it, ie when is the principal due to be repaid?" Other matters which may be relevant include family circumstances and the income of other members of the family. If arrears have accrued as a result of matrimonial breakdown, are any proceedings for ancillary relief likely to result in an order which will enable arrears to be paid off? Is the Benefits Agency (or should it be) paying anything towards the interest due on the mortgage? Security at risk Norgan was a case where the lender's security was not at risk. Courts are likely to be far more cautious about exercising s36 powers where there is already negative equity or where there is a risk of negative equity. In Norgan Waite LJ recognised that there would be cases where evidence might "be required to see if and when the lender's security will become liable to be put at risk as a result of imposing postponement of payments in arrear". (p459) Evans LJ indicated that courts should ask "Are there any reasons affecting the security which should influence the period for payment?" (p463) Similarly in First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co Ltd v Cunningham the Court of Appeal stated that when exercising its AJA discretion, one of the "relevant surrounding circumstances" which the court is entitled to take into account is the fact that the debt might be inadequately secured. Sometimes borrowers produce letters from estate agents in order to satisfy the court about the value of the property in comparison with the amount of the loan outstanding, but in Bristol and West BS v Ellis (1997) 29 HLR 282, CA the Court of Appeal stated that judges should approach such estimates with "reserve". If a borrower's valuation is disputed, it may be necessary for there to be an adjournment for an independent valuation so that the court can determine whether the lender's security is at risk. Sale of the property In most cases borrowers try to satisfy the court that it is likely that the arrears will cleared within a reasonable period by giving evidence about their income and expenditure. However, where borrowers' income is not sufficient to repay arrears, they may seek time in which to sell the property so that the outstanding balance (including arrears) can be paid from the proceeds of sale. In National and Provincial Building Society v Lloyd [1996] 1 All ER 630, CA, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against a decision to suspend a possession order to give the borrower time to sell premises and so clear mortgage arrears. The building society argued that any such suspension should only be for a short period. Neill LJ rejected this submission. If there is clear evidence that completion of the sale of a property "could take place in six or nine months or even a year", there was no reason why the court could not come to the conclusion that it was likely that the arrears would be repaid within a reasonable period. What is "a reasonable period" is a question for the court in each individual case. However, in Lloyd there was insufficient evidence before the judge to show that the arrears would be paid within a reasonable period. Much of it was "a mere expression of hope" and accordingly the building society's appeal against the suspension was allowed. In Bristol and West BS v Ellis (1997) 29 HLR 282, CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that what is a reasonable period for sale depends on the individual circumstances of each case, particularly the extent to which the mortgage and arrears are secured by the value of the property. In Ellis the Court of Appeal allowed a lender's appeal against an order which would have allowed the borrower three to five years (when her children would have finished university education) to sell because there was insufficient evidence that Mrs Ellis could or would sell the property within that period or that the proceeds of sale would be sufficient to discharge the mortgage debt and arrears. The Court stated that the comments by Neill LJ in National and Provincial BS v Lloyd [1996] 1 All ER 630 that sale "could take place in six or nine months or even a year" did not establish a year as the maximum period "as a rule of law or as a matter of general guidance". (See too Cheltenham and Gloucester BS v Johnson (1996) 28 HLR 885, CA where Lloyd was followed.) In most cases where the security is not at risk, the court will adjourn or make a suspended order to allow the borrowers to arrange a sale. It is generally accepted that borrowers occupying premises achieve a better price on sale than lenders through "forced sales". For example in Target Home Loans v Clothier [1994] 1 All ER 439, CA borrowers paid no mortgage installments for over 15 months and when possession proceedings came to court there were arrears of £46,000. The lenders sought an immediate possession order, but the district judge adjourned for 56 days under s36. When the Court of Appeal heard the appeal, there was a letter from estate agents indicating that an offer of £450,000 for the house had been received. Nolan LJ, after asking whether there was a prospect of an early sale, stated: If so, is it better in the interests of all concerned for that to be effected by [the borrower] and his wife or by the mortgage company? If the view is that the prospects of an early sale for the mortgagees as well as for [the borrower] are best served by deferring an order for possession, then it seems to me that that is a solid reason for making such an order . . . ([1994] 1 All ER at p447) The Court of Appeal made a possession order to take effect in three months. Even if the power to suspend execution under Administration of Justice Act 1970 s36 cannot be exercised because it is unlikely that the borrower can repay arrears within a reasonable period, the county court still has a residual inherent jurisdiction to defer the giving up of possession in order to enable the lender to sell the property (Cheltenham and Gloucester plc v Booker (1997) 29 HLR 634, CA.) In such circumstances the court may give conduct of the sale of premises to the lender while postponing execution of a warrant for possession until completion of the sale, thus allowing the borrower to remain in occupation. There is no reason in principle for the court to accede to a lender's insistence upon immediate possession if (a) possession will only be required on completion; (b) the presence of the borrowers pending completion will enhance, or at least not depress, the sale price; © the borrowers will cooperate in the sale; and (d) they will give possession to the purchasers on completion. However in Booker Millett LJ stated these conditions are seldom likely to be satisfied and the circumstances in which such a course would be appropriate are hard to imagine. Such an order would "certainly be a rarity". If a lender does not agree to a borrower selling premises, the borrower may apply for an order for sale under Law of Property Act 1925 s91(2). Such an application may be made in a county court if "the amount owing in respect of the mortgage or charge at the commencement of the proceedings does not exceed £30,000" (The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, para 2(4)). If the amount owing is more than £30,000 a section 91 application has to be made in the High Court. In Cheltenham and Gloucester BS v Krausz [1997] 1 All ER 21, CA, the Court of Appeal held that a district judge in the county court has no jurisdiction to suspend a warrant in these circumstances. Phillips LJ did not consider "that the County Court, as part of its inherent jurisdiction, can properly suspend an order or warrant for possession in order to enable a mortgagor to apply to the High Court for an order under section 91. It [is] incumbent on the mortgagor to seek from the High Court any relief which the court is empowered to give before the warrant takes effect." He noted that s36 makes it clear that parliament did not intend that the court should have power to curtail mortgagees' rights to possession unless the proceeds of sale were likely to discharge the mortgage debt. Mortgage Pre-Action Protocol A new pre-action protocol for possession claims based on residential mortgage arrears came into force on 19 November 2008. See White Book 2009, C*-**** and the annotations thereto. The Protocol does not alter the parties’ contractual or statutory rights and obligations, but does describe the behaviour the court will normally expect of the parties prior to the start of possession claims. It aims to ensure that lenders and borrowers act fairly and reasonably with each other in resolving any matter concerning mortgages and encourages more pre-action contact between lenders and borrowers in an effort to seek agreement, and where this cannot be reached, to enable efficient use of the court’s time and resources. For example, it provides that lenders should consider reasonable requests from borrowers to change the date of regular payment or the method of payment; lenders should respond promptly to any proposal for payment made by borrowers. If lenders do not agree to such a proposal they should give reasons in writing; if lenders submit proposals for payment, borrowers should be given a reasonable period of time in which to consider such proposals; and if borrowers can demonstrate that reasonable steps have been or will be taken to market the property at an appropriate price in accordance with reasonable professional advice, lenders should consider postponing starting possession claims. The Protocol does not contain any specific sanctions, but concludes “Parties should be able, if requested by the court, to explain the actions that they have taken to comply with this protocol.” However, if non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred, the court has the power to make the orders in relation to costs and interest set out in para 2.3 of the Practice Direction on Protocols (see White Book, C1-002), although when doing so, the court should bear in mind the contractual rights and obligations of the parties under the mortgage deed. Sittingduck

Lea_HTH Thank you so much for all that you have given. You've given me direction and hope. Kind regards, Sitting Duck If anyone else has any useful advice on how to approach the Court and to fight this, everything is appreciated.

Thanks Lea-HTH Very useful. Here is my original agreement: Interest Interest at the rate (S) charged to the Mortgagor by the Bank from time to time Charged assets The Assets charged by clause 1.2 Goodwill The present and future goodwill of any business carried on at the Property by or on behalf of the Mortgagor Mortgagors Obligations All the Mortgagors liabilities to the Bank of any kind and in any currency (whether present or future actual or contingent and whether incurred alone or jointly with another) together with the Bank’s charges and commission Interest and Expenses Expenses All expenses (on a full indemnity basis) incurred by the Bank or any Receiver at any time in connection with the Property the Charged Assets the Goodwill or the Mortgagors’s obligations or in taking or perfecting this deed or in preserving defending or enforcing the security created by this deed or in exercising any power under this deded or otherwise withInterest from the date theyare incurred Required Currency The currency or currencies in which the Mortgagor’s Obligations are expressed from time to time. Charge 1 The Mortgagor covenants to discharge on demand the Mortgagors Obligations and as a continuing security for such discharge and with full title guarantee charges to the Bank: 1.1 By way of legal mortgage of all legal interests and otherwise by way of fixed charge the Property (to the full extent of the Mortgagor’s interests in the Property or its proceeds of sale) 1.2 By way of fixed charge if the Mortgagor is not an individual 1.2.1 All the fixtures and fittings of the Mortgagor from time to time attached to the Property 1.2.2 All the plant and machinery vehicles and computer equipment of the Mortgagor present and future at the Property not regularly disposed of in the ordinary course of business and all associated warranties and maintenance contracts 1.2.3 All furniture furnishings equipment tools and other chattels of the Mortgagor now and in the future at the Property and not regularly disposed of in the ordinary course of business 1.3 By way of fixed charge the Goodwill all rents receivable from any lease granted out of the Property and the proceeds of any insurance from time to time affecting the Property or the Charged Assets. Appropriation 7.1 Subject to clause 7.2 the Bank may appropriate all payments received for the accounts of the Mortgagor in reduction of any part of the Mortgagors Obligations as the bank decides 7.2 The bank may open a new account or accounts upon the bank receiving actual or constructive notice of any charge or interest affecting the Property the Charged Assets or the Goodwill. Whether or not the Bank opens any such account no payment received by the Bank after receiving such notice shall (if followed by any payment out of or debit to the relevant account) be appropriated towards or have the effect of discharging any part of the Mortgagors Obligations outstanding at the time of receiving such notice Business loans were taken out on this Residential home. I am now going to read all case law and get valuations on the property. I feel with the rent coming in from the flat I can show I can afford payments. I do not know if this has relevance; I have documents between the Bank and the Solicitors that acted for me headed: First Legal Charge over Non Residential Property Non Corporate. The property description is then Flat x, xxx Road Thank you.

Lea_HTH those words were positive, supportive and appreciated. I can see that you are managing my expectations. Your comment on negotiation I agree with and get that my chances are slim against the imbalance of the financial and legal might of the bank. My thoughts are also that if I come to an agreement with the Bank they can renege. If the Judge gives an order they cannot. I have a very large folder of correspondence in chronological order with transcripts of recordings of telephone calls with the bank. These are not transcripts supplied by them. They've not furnished me with information requested via my Subject Access Request sent recorded delivery on the 17 January 2014. I will now trawl through case law at BAILII.org. Does anyone have any cases that they feel may be relevant to repossession on an all monies charge? If anyone else knows of relevant case law please point me in the right direction. Thank you

Lea_HTH Thank you, I am now beginning to understand. I feel I do not have a chance. I am trying to work out what cases an experienced Solicitor would cite. I cannot see what a Solicitor could do apart from rack up my bill. Now it is damage limitation and the offer. Any negotiation tips? Kind regards, SittingDuck

Hi Thank you for your input, Lea_HTH thank you for pointing out my ineptitude, I get your point and am aware, this is a symptom of my distress, I apologise. I am not using a Solicitor. I have resigned myself to repossession and if need be intend living outside the banking hall with a placard. In the meantime, I am going to make one last ditch attempt at seeing if the bank will accept an offer of repayment for a slightly smaller amount than their claim. My offer is based on the fact that the figure is the claim amount less the unfair charges.The offer: (see post 11) I am going to ask for the repayment to be over 7 years. The first year I pay the rent to the bank and the second year start making repayments or sell/remortgage. I have read each repossession costs circa £30k and with this in the mix if they refuse my offer, repossess and sell they will recover less than the amount I offer. As I am defending myself I do have some questions: 1) In the particulars of claim they have not given a statement/full breakdown. Can they gain possession on this basis? 2) The unfair charges include overdraft renewal fees for £800 for six weeks renewal. Note they had security on this all monies charge and knew I was financially struggling at this point. After repossession Can I claim back unfair charges or claim under unfair relationship? 3) If they refuse my offer and sell for less than this, can they claim the shortfall from the sale price if less than my offer? Thank you, SittingDuck

Lea-HTH Thank you. I would get a Solicitor if I could. I have no money. I can not get money unless I am guaranteed that the property can be finished. So I am here for help. There are many, many people in the same position as me that have been manipulated by the bank on commercial terms and have had massive fees charged to them so they are stressed financially so the banks can eventually take their assets (google Lawrence Tomlinson). So any help here is gratefully received and I'm sure my journey will help others too. 'They may be able to agree repayment in the seven years as that is what you were told previously'. Sorry if I'm being thick; when you say 'they' do you mean the Judge, the Bank or the Solicitor. If the Judge agrees 7 years or longer does this still count as a repossession and will it be entered against my credit file as such? I do have it in writing the 7 years. I however cannot afford £2500 pcm whilst continuing the build. Any recommendations on structuring an offer to the bank or Court on this repossession with an all monies charge is useful. Thank you. Kind regards Sitting Duck

Hi, Thank you, 'Use a SOLICITOR not one of the many repossession claim companies that advertise online (or anywhere else), most of them don't know anything but the straightforward stuff.' Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of being able to use a Solicitor. I feel that the amount claimed is made up of unfair charges and as the Bank have not complied with my Subject Access Request or given a breakdown of the claim how can we agree a figure. I am going to ask the bank If they will accept £140k over 7 years The first year being interest only and I pay the rent from the tenanted flat to reduce the £140k. By the 2nd to 7 year I would have finished building my flat and may then be in a position to remortgage or sell the tenanted flat. Am I better offering this to the bank or waiting until the Court date and asking the judge to make an order? The reason I ask is that the bank could agree, wait for me to finish the build and then when value is maximised repossess. A court ordering they accept this offer would give me and the tenant security. Any suggestions on how I should broker this deal is much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you everyone. Here is the Claim for possession: In the Eastbourne County Court 1. The Claimant has a right to possession of: 9, xxxxxxxxx Road, XXX XXX (being all that property composed in Title number ESX xxxxx About the mortgage 2. On 5th March 2007 the Claimant and the Defendant entered into a mortgage of the above premises. A copy of the Mortgage is served herewith. 3. To the best of the claimants knowledge the following persons are in possession of the property: The defendant remains in legal possession of the property but it may be occupied. 4 (b) The agreement for the loan secured by the mortgage is not a regulated consumer credit agreement. 5. The claimant is asking for possession on the following ground (s): (a) the defendant has not paid the agreed repayments of the loan and interest. The said Legal Charge also provided:- (a) That the property was charged by the defendant by way of Legal Mortgage to secure the discharge on demand to the Claimant Bank of the Defendants’ obligations to the Bank (“the Mortgagor’s obligations) together with interest at the date of discharge and expenses. (b) The said Legal Charge also provided:- (1) the Mortgagor was the Defendant: (2) the Bank was the Claimant: (3) interest was the rate charged to the Mortgagor by the Bank: (4) the Mortgagor’s obligations were all the Mortgagor’s liabilities to the Bank of any kind (whether present or future, actual or contingent and whether incurred alone or jointly with another) including banking charges and commission: (5) interest will be calculated both before and after demand or Judgment on a daily basis and compounded quarterly on such days as the Bank may select. (b) because: The Mortgage secures all the Defendants’ liabilities to the Claimant of any kind, and is repayable on demand. 6. The amount loaned was all monies loaned to the Defendant by the Claimant are secured by and repayable under the terms of the Mortgage. The sums secured and repayable at the date hereof are as follows:- Account Balance Daily rate of interest (Bus overdraft acc number xxx) £57k £X.XX (Bus loan acc number xxx) £68K £X.XX (Bus loan acc number xxx) £65K £X.XX TOTAL £190K £X.XX (b) The current terms of repayment are: (include any periodic repayment and any current payment of interest) 1. On demand 2. In the event of any other breach of the terms of the Mortgage or Loan Agreement. © The total amount required to repay the mortgage in full as at the date hereof (not more than 14 days after the claim was issued) would be £190,575 taking into account any adjustment for early settlement. This includes £575.00 payable for solicitor’s costs and administration charges. (d) The following additional payments are also required under the terms of the mortgage. £NONE for (not) included in 6 (b) (e) Of the payments in paragraph 6(d), the following are in arrears: arrears of £ NONE (f) this next bit is crossed out The total amount outstanding under the regulated loan agreement secured by the mortgage is. (g) Interest rates which have been applied to the mortgage: Account (this is the business overdraft account number) (1) at the start of the mortgage 7.25% p.a (2) immediately before any (3) at the start of the claim 2.50% p.a. Being the contractual rate above the Claimants Base Rate from time to time in force namely 2.00% ABR Account (this is the 1st business loan number) (1) at the start of the mortgage 7.25% p.a (2) immediately before any (3) at the start of the claim 2.50% p.a. Being the contractual rate above the Claimants Base Rate from time to time in force namely 2.00% ABR Account (this is the 2nd business loan number) (1) at the start of the mortgage 7.25% p.a (2) immediately before any (3) at the start of the claim 2.50% p.a. Being the contractual rate above the Claimants Base Rate from time to time in force namely 2.00% ABR 7. The following steps have already been taken to recover the money secured by the mortgage. The Claimant has fully complied with the Mortgage Pre-Action Protocol in so far as it relates to these proceedings and has commenced action against the Defendant as the protocol has achieved no resolution of matters with the Defendant. Copy correspondence is served herewith. About the Defendant (s) 8. The following information is known about the defendants’ circumstances: (in particular say whether the defendant is in receipt of social security benefits and whether any payments are made direct to the claimant) The Claimant has no information about the Defendants’ circumstances which could aid the court. (Delete either (a) or (b) as appropriate) 9 (a) There is no one who should be given notice of these proceedings because of a registered interest in the property under section 31 (10) of the Family Law Act 1996 or section 2(8) 0r 8(3) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (copy served herewith) (b) this next bit is crossed out Notice of these proceedings will be given to who has a registered interest in the property. Tenancy (Delete if appropriate) 10. this next bit is crossed out A tenancy was entered into between the mortgagor and the mortgagee on A notice was served on . What the court is being asked to do 11. The claimant asks the court to order that the Defendant: (a) give the Claimant possession of the premises: (b) pay to the Claimant the total amount outstanding under the mortgage. Statement of Truth *(The Claimant believes) that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true * I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement. signed XXXXX date Full name xxxxx Name of Claimants Solicitors firm xxxx Position of office held PARTNER Then there is microfiche copy of a legal charge. Here is part: Powers of the Bank 4.1 The bank may without restriction grant or accept surrender of leases of the Property and the Charged Assets 4.2 Section103 of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall not apple and the Bank may exercise its power of sale and other powers under that or any other Act or this deed at any time after the date of this deed. 4.3 The Bank may under the hand of any official or manager or by deed appoint or remove a Receiver or Receivers of the Property Charged Assets and the Goodwill and may fix and pay the fees of a Receiver but any Receiver shall be deemed to be the agent of the Mortgagor and the Mortgagor shall be solely responsible for the Receiver’s acts defaults and remuneration. 4.4 All or any of the powers conferred on a Receiver by Clause 5 may be exercised by the Bank without first appointing a Receiver or notwithstanding any appointment 4.5 The Bank will not be liable to account to the Mortgagor as mortgagee in possession for any money not actually received by the Bank 4.6 Section 93(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall not apply to this deed. 4.7In addition to any lien or right to which the Bank may be entitled by law the Bank may from time to time without notice and both before and after demand set off the whole or any part of the Mortgagor’s Obligations against any deposit or credit balance on any account of the Mortgagor with the Bank (whether or not that deposit or balance is due to the Mortgagor) 4.8 Despite any term to the contrary in relation to any deposit or credit balance on any account of the Mortgagor with the Bank that deposit or balance will not be capable of being assigned dealt with mortgaged or charged and will not be repayable to the Mortgagor before all the Mortgagors Obligations have been discharged but the Bank may without prejudice to this deed permit the Mortgagor to make withdrawals from time to time. 4.9 The Bank may exchange or convert to the Required Currency any currency held or received It then goes on about receivers powers. Note this is not the page I signed On the bottom of the page it is overtyped:’This official copy is incomplete without the proceeding notes page. Official notes Page then states: These are the notes referred to on the following official copy Title number xxxxx The electronic official copy of the document follows this message. This copy may not be the same size as the original. Please note that this is the only official copy we will issue. We will not issue a paper official copy. After this separately is my signature on a page titled: In Witness of which this deed has been duly executed Kind regards, SittingDuck

I would go with Keates good advice. I have been on a very steep learning curve lately and realise that the Treasury owned banks in particular (UKAR (Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley) RBS etc) are taking landlords properties and evicting tents via circumnavigating the court process and using LPA receivers. In other words if you respond to the LPA receiver they do not need a Court order to evict you. After reading many posts you can see that their business is not based on morals. The key here is to stay united with your landlord and work together. Ask your Landlord not the LPA receiver for a copy of the Bank/building society details and then pay direct into that account. Chances are your landlord is being treated badly by the bank/building society and they are attempting to vilify him/her and taking their property. They are probably suffering too. Your landlord may wish to renew your tenancy with you. Talk with your landlord to understand the situation. If you communicate with the LPA receiver and not the landlord they will eventually evict you. Work with the landlord and the building society will have to seek a possession order via you and your landlord through a Court. This will give your landlord a chance, your landlord will be grateful and you will have security. As Keates says direct your landlord here, Keates is very knowledgeable.

Ell-enn Phew, pressure off for today. Thank you,I hope you have a great day! Kind regards, Sittingduck