Almost certainly not. The various "three letter" or five letters processes originated from the US using their debt validation principles. The idea is to deny every having dealt with creditor, that's not going to fly living in a house with the electricity. Have you posted up meter readings yet?

What was the outcome?

Right. So I think it would be good idea to give a brief description of the property, for example detached house, or flat or terraced. And some sort of identifier so we can distinguish from other properties you handle. An incomplete street address eg "No.14" would do so while preserving your privacy. Is the freehold title discrete for the property, or does it cover other leasehold properties? And a bit about your history, how current ownership came about. At one stage you said it used to be your family home, elsewhere you wrote that you'd bought the leasehold. Did those comments refer to this property? Did you acquire it on the open market, or from your family? Is this the house with the garages, where you own the freehold? Trying to understand whether there are underlying reasons that might account for problems with valuation, eligibility for finance, and the fact that neither you nor Lender found it possible to sell. Finally (for the moment) you refer to existing litigation. Does that relate to this property? If so it would be good to give a brief overview. Civil or criminal? What role do play .. claimant, defendant, appellant, respondent? Charge, or cause of action. You don't want to go off on separate path that would better joined to the current proceedings.

Really, have you had several leasehold properties repossessed from you? This is the trouble with asking advice in a series of hypothetical questions, with all parties unnamed and referred to in the third person.

From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"

I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.

Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.

I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell. I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity. But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years. The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.

Post #415 you said you were unable to sell it yourself. Earlier I believe you said there had been expressions of interest, but only if the buyer could acquire the freehold title. I wonder if the situation with the existing freeholders is such that the property is really unattractive, in ways possibly not obvious to someone who also has an interest in and acts for the freeholders.

Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.

If you're set on pursuing the receiver then a complaint to his governing body (if any) might be a sensible low risk first step. You need to confirm what qualifications he actually has. I don't believe an LPA Receiver necessarily needs to be a licensed insolvency practioner, although he may be. Or he may a chartered surveyor. I note you say "LPA" and "fixed charge" receiver, but aren't those two different appointments with different remits? What relevant powers are given in the mortgage terms and security? Or if that's unclear then how was the appointment described to you? Ducking back to the comment I made earlier, you consulted a solicitor who advised a claim against the receiver. How did he advise that you do so? Some background reading (accepting it's from 2013 and you may be working off more recent preceded overturning this) .. LPA receivers owe very limited duty to borrowers; a reminder WWW.WRIGHTHASSALL.CO.UK As lenders rely more and more on their powers to appoint an LPA Receiver, a recent case has clarified the Receiver’s obligations, both to the lender and its borrower.

Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15

Our price is the same all day, but varies day to day. Yes there's a risk of high prices but it has never gone above SVR any time since I signed up. Last 30 days average 17.67p/kWh, max 20.67 and lowest was 11.83. It saved just under £300 during 2023.

It you had E7 in the past but have converted to single rate then the meter will still hold the last recorded Night readings. This introduces scope for error when manually reading. If the meter has only ever been used on single rate then there's only one figure that can be taken. For example ours shows "Rate 1" reading and a "Total import" reading, but they both give the sme figure. If it has ever been on E7 the total will be higher, including the retained night reading.

Are you on Economy 7, or were you at any time since the smart meter was installed?

Do you have historical meter readings from before the meters were changed? And more recent history showing consumption, in metered units not in £s, since the change. One specific thing to check is gas. Check that the meter and the bill use the same units. If the meter is recording cu.m but they're billing as if it was counting 100 cu.ft, then your bill will be nearly three times too high. Overall I'm guessing it's an Ovo screw up. It's significant that they didn't block the transfer, maybe they aren't so sure of their position.

Well naturally if you want to maintain your outrage, and retain something to bitch about, then arguing about the level of your fixed monthly DD is the way to go. You are of course perfectly free to ignore the easy solution.

Octopus allows you to pay by variable Direct Debit, so you pay only for what you use but still benefit from DD pricing. That's what I've done ever we were SOLRed over to them in July 2022.

Meter certification periods re given in The Meters (Certification) Regulations 1998, Schedule 4. From there you can check if they are correct about your specific meter .. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1566/schedule/4 If they're telling porkies then you have e clear grounds to tell them to take hike. If they're correct or if you haven't been able to confirm then you have few options. You could just keep fobbing them off. In general Octopus can't keep up with demand for smart meters. It took 9 months to get our. So they may not push too hard. Or ask if you can install your own choice of meter. The Electricity Act 1989 cover this in Schedule 7 (2) and (2A) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/schedule/7 Or fight the them and their enforcement. Or go off supply.

What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.

No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others. Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.

It may be vaguely possible Entity could apply citing the fact that Lender is not exercising their own right. But they won't. As a second charge holder they will be aware they only get the crumbs at the very best, and that a property that's been in arrears for so long probably won't even cover Lender's costs and balance leaving nothing for them. They may also take the view that others have been unable to sell over several years, so why would they have any more success.

A second charge holder isn't going to do that at this stage. "Lender" would get first dibs on the proceeds of sale probably leaving nothing for "Entity".

Other entity? Does another creditor have security on the property?

In that case I don't think you'd have any grounds for a claim against the receiver, short of anything actually criminal. The receiver was appointed by the lender so any claim you make should be aginst them. How much equity do you reckon there was when they took possession? Realistic value less outstanding balance (including arrears). This messing around makes me wonder even more if the property was wildly over valued. Normally a lender would sell and not really care if they got the best price so long as they covered the balance plus their costs.