Am currently involved in situation with a loan from Together whereby they have served default notice and appointed LPA Receivers - who are trying to push towards auction of commercial property that loan is secured on, which obviously we do not want to do. Both the Lender and the LPA are not helpful in any way and the LPA is not acting on behalf of the Borrower given that the arrears is £1,600 and the figure the LPA-R wants is just short of £4k, and the Lender is charging another £2k for appointing him! Statement of account lists various charges such as 'Property Company Management Charges £xxx Professional Costs £xxx (this was followed 5 days later by exactly the same item - and amount!) I asked for an explanation of what these were for and proof of 'work' carried out when I know nothing has been done, Together stated that 'the charges are explained'. Eventually I have discovered that the LPA-R is actually the Property Management Company which is nice, and completely undisclosed by the Lender or the LPA-R who in theory is supposed to be working on the borrowers behalf. On the statement of account, for the 27 months the account has been running, the charges on the account actually total circa £6,500 - with the receivers costs on top, so a five figure sum. I was wondering if anybody else had encountered similar situation with regard to Together and their LPA-R of choice Waterfold, and if there was any advice as to how to deal with them and obviously challenge the 'plucked from thin air' fees?

I defaulted on a bridging loan and Receivers have been appointed. They have secured the property (changed the locks) and have asked me to book a time to remove my belongings (Torts Notice served). The property was and is my home and my only home but I have not lived there since taking out the bridging loan is because the loan was unregulated and I did not want to be in breach of the terms. However, it was never rented out; in fact, I never removed my belongings from the property. I have never desired to be landlord and the only reason for taking out the loan was to keep my home. This was declared to the lender from the very beginning; nonetheless, the product offered to me was an unregulated loan. As I was not eligible for a mortgage at the time and it was very unlikely that I would be by the end of the loan term, sale was my only option of exit strategy. This was a better option than having the property repossessed. The Receivers have said I must either remove my belongings or pay for storage. I have not abandoned my belongings or “left them behind”. I am in the process of remortgaging and they are aware of this, as I have kept them informed. The mortgage has been agreed subject to valuation which is due tomorrow. Can they force me to empty the property?

The appointment of a receiver(s) can be effectively challenged by scrutinising the terms and conditions of the mortgage and the contents and form of letter or deed of appointment. The appointment document must be executed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, which may include any or all of the following: The Law of Property Act 1925 s109(1) – Must be under ‘his’ hand The Companies Act 2006 s44 – Execution of documents - Hilmi & Associates Ltd v 20 Pembridge Villas Freehold Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 31 The Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s1 – If made by deed of appointment, although even if the appointment is not affective as a deed it may still be affective as ‘under his hand’ In practice this means that the letter of appointment must be signed in accordance the Companies Act 2006 s.44 and be signed either by: Two authorised signatories A director in the presence of a witness, who attests the signature By a person authorise to execute documents on behalf of the company under a power of attorney , in accordance the Power of Attorney Act 1971 If the letter of appointment is not properly executed the appointment is void and the ‘lender’ and any receiver(s) acting under the appointment are liable for damages. The next thing to check is whether the appointment is in accordance with the mortgage deed, for example if the appointment document appoints two receivers to act jointly and severally, but the mortgage only allows for the appointment of one or more receivers and does not stipulate that they may act jointly and severally then the appointment is deemed ineffective and void. The principle that the Lender is obliged to appoint receivers in accordance with the Mortgage is accepted and applied by the courts throughout the common law world. The Bank purports to appoint Receiver(s) without the aid of the courts in pursuant to its contractual rights under the Mortgage with the Receiver's authority being derived directly from the Mortgage. Therefore the receiver has to be appointed in strict compliance with the terms of the contract between the parties (mortgagee and the mortgagor). Since the receiver's authority is derived from the mortgage under which he is appointed, an appointment is not valid unless it is made in accordance with the terms of that mortgage. This principle has been recognised by the leading commentators (Receivers and Administrators, Kerr & Hunter; and The Law of Private Companies (3rd Ed, Courtney). Lynch-Fannon Corporate Insolvency and Rescue (2nd ed.) has noted that "the penalty for non-compliance with the formalities for the appointment of the receiver is that such appointment is void". She also observed that non-compliance with formalities of appointment amounts to an abuse of process. In Wrights Hardware v. Evans (1988) 13 A.C.L.R. 631 the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the deed of charge authorised the Chargee under clause 4.3 to “appoint in writing any person to be a receiver or receiver and manager ... of the mortgaged premises" and under clause 4.4 "in addition ... appoint in writing any person to be an additional receiver or receiver manager" who had “full powers and authority to exercise all or any part of the powers expressed to be conferred on a receiver appointed...". The Chargee had in fact appointed the defendants “jointly and severally to be receivers and managers" of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought interlocutory relief restraining the defendants from acting as receivers and managers on the basis that the appointment was invalid, there being no power in the charge to appoint receivers and managers jointly and severally. The defendant argued that the proper construction of the charge authorised the appointment of joint and several receivers and managers or, in the alternative, the appointment was nevertheless valid insofar as it authorised the defendants to act jointly. The Supreme Court of Western Australia held that the relevant clauses could not have the meaning contended for by the defendants and granted the injunction. Franklyn J. emphasised the importance that the terms of the debenture be complied with by stating: "I am satisfied that the relevant law applying to the appointment of a receiver or receiver and manager, and receivers or receivers and managers pursuant to the charge is as follows: 1. The manner in which a receiver is to be appointed is prescribed by the debenture deed, in this case the charge, and must be strictly followed…” I am aware that many mortgagees are appointing two receivers to act jointly and severally, when in fact the terms of the mortgage do not permit the appointment of receivers to act jointly and severally; any such appointment is void. If the receivers appointment is void, then the receiver(s) are trespassers and liable to damages for trespassers and if they have sold your property they are liable for conversion and/or trespass with conversion. The lender may also be vicariously liable for trespassers and conversion, and liable for breach of contract. Even if the letter of appointment is valid, receive(s) will routinely act outside of the scope of their powers, and as such commit acts of trespass. Unless the power of the receiver(s) are extended by the terms of the mortgage, the extent of the powers of the receiver(s) are limited to those derived from the LPA 1925 s.109(3) – (8). This means that unless the powers of the receiver(s) have been extended the receiver(s) may not: Grant tenancies, or leases Accept the surrender of tenancies or leases Bring possession proceedings unless it is in relation to rent Market or sell the property Although under s109(3) mortgagee may delegate powers to the receiver(s), on my reading, the mortgagee can only delegate its own powers to the receivers and cannot delegate the powers of the mortgagees and this would make the receiver the agent of the mortgagee. So unless the receiver(s) powers have been extended by the terms of the mortgage the extent of the receiver’s powers as the agent of the mortgagor are limited to those stipulated in the LPA 1925 s.109(3) – (8). If the receiver(s) exercise any power that is delegated by the mortgagee, then the receiver becomes the agent of the mortgagee, and the mortgagee becomes a mortgagee in possession.

Hi, hope admin don't mind but I am looking for others like myself who have been screwed over by Natwest/RBS. I moved some of my properties to them and took out a 5 year loan facility with them in 2007 on the understanding that they would renew the loan as long as I was a good customer & paid my dues. I did pay my dues & never missed a payment but after the banking crisis they decided they didn't want to have "buy to let properties" on their books any more & demanded all the money back, including the further loans that I had taken out over a 15 year term. As banks weren't lending at that time I was unable to repay the money so Natwest appointed LPA receivers. This never went to court as they use "the law of property act 1925" a very interesting read if you have time. I have been battling with Natwest ever since & have spent a small fortune on solicitors & barristers. Please see my other posts for the early part of my story. Unfortunately I cant post the rest of my story at the moment but I will as soon as I can. The main thing I need to do is find others like myself so please contact me, we may be able to help each other. Thanks in advance.

Admin if you have to merge my posts pease can this be the main one as it has a more relevant title to my problem. LPA Receivers have taken over my properties with no court order & no agreement from me. 2 of the properties are empty & the receivers are doing nothing about it, how would I stand if I were to go ahead & let the properties with full knowlege of the problem to the tennants?

i have worked for a company for about a year, they haven't paid me for 7 weeks and have went into receivership, i accept vollantary redundancy last week and since then the company have told me the company have called the receivers in.... they still owe me 7 weeks wages but i dont know where i stand or how to get my wages.....can anyone help...????