Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!

[tarquin999]

Thanks for the clarification, diddled.

 

Presumably if FOS ruled in our favour, we could then engage a lawyer to build upon the FOS ruling to claim for additional compensation?

[diddled]

In my case FOS investigation took almost 2 years, largely due to lack of co-operation on the banks part. Whilst the FOS substantially upheld my case ( and made a fundamentally flawed decision on some aspects of the case) they could not look at the actions of the LPA receivers, as they are deemed in a strict legal sense the borrowers agents.

 

I rejected FOS decision in favour of taking other action

[tarquin999]

Oh. That doesn't bode well. However, the FSA are very much more interested in BTL mortgages than ever before - so perhaps FOS will be able to take a more holistic view of new cases like ours (fingers crossed).

 

Failing that, I'm still trying to find a Pro Bono lawyer to get the Power Of Attorney revoked, and the sales stopped. It's unacceptable for Allsop to abuse the POA. It's like me being forced at gunpoint to give them a blank cheque book. It would be halfway accetable if they were accountable to a regulatory authority but, as is, it's got to be one of the best earners on the planet for them!

 

I think the FSA should be able to shut down the current POA "open cheque book" practice because, in the FSA's words, "the terms seem grossly unfair" (due to them not being accountable to anyone).

 

Oh well!

[patrickq1]

hi everyone , not been on for a bit , anyway will read up all of whats been happening , firstly the power of atorney is like ive said before not worth the paper its written on, and also these POA were signed within the same contract ,you have the right to revoke the power of atorney and sack the agents who have been employed by the societies involved due to lack of trust and not acting in your intrest , the power of atorney you were also duped into thinking that this was for cases were you had become mentally unstatble or bankrupt...so in otherwords the societies have duped you ,so use this below and seek a lawer to fill in the blanks and take over all the properties, also any properties sold try to stop the sale from being completed ,this will be throught the courts and apply for a stay of action until such time they wish to either prosecute you ,then they will have a very difficult job explaining the properties being sold short ,and will also have to admit to colusion in the sale of these properties especially if the buyer has got the funds from the societies...

patrickq1

Revocation of Power of Attorney FAQ

 

Q: What is a "Revocation of Power of Attorney"?

 

A: A Revocation of Power of Attorney is a legal document signed by or on behalf of a person who granted a Power of Attorney (the Donor). It states that the donor is canceling the powers that were given to another person (the Attorney) in an earlier Power of Attorney. The document provides written confirmation that the donor has revoked the Power of Attorney that was previously granted.

 

 

Q: Why would I want to revoke a Power of Attorney I previously granted?

 

A: Some reasons why you may wish to revoke a Power of Attorney include:

 

 

• The Power of Attorney is no longer necessary as you are now able to act on your own behalf;
  
• You no longer trust the person who is acting on your behalf (your Attorney);
  
• You have found a more suitable candidate to act as your Attorney;
  
• It is no longer practical to have your Attorney acting on your behalf (e.g. your Attorney no longer resides in the same jurisdiction as you do); and
  
• The purpose of the Power of Attorney has been fulfilled and you no longer need an Attorney to act for you.
  

 

 

Q: Is it necessary for me to have a written Revocation of Power of Attorney?

 

A: A Power of Attorney is a powerful legal document which can enable an Attorney to do almost anything with your property (depending on the powers you have granted in the Power of Attorney document). A revocation of a Power of Attorney is not effective against the Attorney or any third party (e.g. bank) until notice of the revocation has been received by that party. Consequently, it is a good idea to have a written document as evidence of your revocation to make sure there is no doubt as to your intention to revoke the power.

 

 

Q: When can I revoke my Power of Attorney?

 

A: A Power of Attorney can be revoked at any time, regardless of the termination date specified in the document, as long as the Donor is mentally capable. (Note: there are some exceptions, but these apply only to "binding" Powers of Attorney. LawDepot does not provide forms for binding Powers of Attorney on our web site).

 

 

Q: Can I still revoke my Power of Attorney if I become incompetent?

 

A: An ordinary power of attorney is automatically revoked if the person who made it is found to be incompetent, but a durable/enduring power of attorney can only be revoked by the person who made it while that person is mentally competent.

 

 

Q: Do I have to specify why I am revoking my Power of Attorney?

 

A: You are not required to explain why you are revoking your Power of Attorney. As long as you are mentally capable, you can revoke your Power of Attorney for any reason (or for no reason).

 

 

Q. How will my Revocation of Power of Attorney become effective?

 

A: In order to give effect to your Revocation you must complete the following steps:

 

 

• Have your Revocation witnessed or acknowledged before a notary;
  
• Provide a copy of your Revocation to your Attorney and ask him/her to return all of his/her copies of the Power of Attorney;
  
• Provide a copy of your Revocation to any financial institutions or any other third parties where your Power of Attorney may have been used; and
  
• Provide a copy of your Revocation to any agency where your Power of Attorney has been recorded (e.g. County Clerk's Office, deed registry or land titles office)
  

[tarquin999]

Thanks partickq1. However, the Chelsea's Mortgage Conditions states that the POA is not revokable until the monies have been repaid in full. Does that prevent use of the procedure you listed?

[diddled]

Generally all POA within mortgages/charges over land are written into the contract as irrevocable. They can be terminated on death or mental incapacity, but cannot be revoked unless/until the debt is discharged in full.

[tarquin999]

That was my fear, diddled. However, surely, if the Attorney is grossly abusing their power, there must be some grounds for revocation?

[diddled]

Breach of trust/fiduciary duty?

[patrickq1]

as said above breach of trust and fiduciary duty ,losses are unacceptable under the conditions the receiver is operating under ,

try what ive written below it will need revising in places

patrickq1

 

Name

Address

p.code

phone n.

Mortgage co

Address

 

Addressed to Mr .directors

Ref…property No 1….2

 

 

 

Civil Procedure

 

Dear Sir

THIS IS A REQUEST UNDER THE Civil Procedure RULES. DO NOT IGNORE.

 

I am in receipt of your letter-dated xx; this was posted by xx Class post, and was not received by me until xx.

The obvious reason for the delay is it was not sent to my home address or business address but sent to the flat’s address that I own,

This was not done in error! In addition, I point out to you that all previous correspondence has always been to my business address or home address,

never in the years we have had mortgages with you have you used the flat addresses as it is also known if a tenant finds such letters they either throw it in the bin or send back undelivered wrong address,

so on the occasions you have chosen to post mail to these addresses this is a deliberate act and shall be treated as a malicious act against myself,

You have not formally indicated that you were intending to appoint receivers I only found out by chance that this was happening , I am sure that this being a statutory duty that you must comply as a matter in the interest of fairness

a) You have not giving me Formal Notice that your receivers ( WALKER SINGLETON/CHELSEA ETC ETC) have been instructed by you to commence receivership against the mortgaged properties that I own, and without delay and you have refused to enter into any sort of mediation I have pleaded with you to come to an arrangement or mediation . You have refused even to acknowledge any correspondence from me.

I am sure that you are aware that I have long since requested from your both yourselves and your appointed receiver, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act), a copy of the agreement to which we are both a signatory and also a copy of the POWER OF ATORNEY to which you are relying on.

To date this has not been provided to me. Whilst I appreciate your client has endeavoured to persuade me that the provision of a copy of an POWER OF ATORNEY form is sufficient to discharge your client from further obligations to mediate with me , likewise I too have explained that I want to come to a settlement or agreement you still refuse to have any conversation with me

Notwithstanding the foregoing and your client's persistent and unexplained and wilful refusal to talk with the Buyer who I had found and wanted to purchase the properties for a sum that was above the asking price yet your appointed receiver carried on and sold the properties for a sum that would be considered below the price range of similar properties in that area , we question this method and ask for an explanation as to why this has occurred, as you are aware a formal complaint has now been entered with both the FSA AND FSO to look into the methods you are employing ( under the permitted omissions under Regulation 3(2) excepted), your client has made plain its intention not to begin legal proceedings against me In consequence, this matter may now be treated as one, which is subject to the control of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Take notice therefore that under CPR Practice Direction - Protocols paragraph 4.6(a) and (d), I request that you supply copies of the following documents:

 

[1] A true copy of the executed Mortgage agreement incorporating prescribed notices, terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was executed and

[2] Any further or subsequent notices, terms and conditions relied upon i.e.: the POWER OF ATORNEY . I request a full AUDIT TRAIL of all correspondence and all E Mails between myself your Company and the receiver

[3] I request the full data of payments made for each mortgage, to include all charges made by your company and all data and charges made by the RECEIVER to include all repairs and invoices for each separate property.

Please note this request under the Practice Direction is not a request for production within the confines of the Act and Regulations but rather, it is for a copy of the executed agreement, including signatures and all such other notices as in the proof of notification of the appointment of the receiver and under what terms and conditions , the terms and conditions as will be relied upon in the event that I shall begin a claim.

 

A copy of all documents to include E Mails invoices and charges made by both yourselves and the receiver,

What I have requested should be supplied to me within 14 days, and you are urged suspend all proceedings and actions of the receiver for a period of not less than 14 days following the supply of those documents to me.

 

Should you or your client elect to ignore my request under the Practice Direction and commence proceedings, I shall repeat my request for the provision of documents under CPR 31.14. In the event that you or your receiver should fail to comply with my CPR 31.14 request.

I shall begin court proceedings, I will not hesitate in making an application to the court for an order to stay any further proceedings, this shall include any and all actions by the receiver and the use of the receiver be stayed pending provision of the requisite documents, in the course of a court application I shall refer to this and previous requests for the provision of copy documents.

 

Please respond within the time stated.

 

Yours faithfully,

[patrickq1]

while there's no way to make a power of attorney bulletproof, there is a built-in legal failsafe of having a court inspect or monitor the reality of the situation and change it if necessary.

[tarquin999]

Thank you patrickq1, and diddled - for your PM.

 

I'm on the case with vigor - as one of the affected tenants is threatening to go to the press - which would adversely affect my current property investment business (it would certainly kill my business completely - making even more tenants homeless).

[patrickq1]

adjust the letter above CPR 31.14 and do this ...

there is a built-in legal fail safe of having a court inspect or monitor the reality of the situation and change it if necessary

so court action will more likely be a necessity and here you can get the judge to instruct them to produce every piece of paper they have ,

patrickq1

or You can apply on an N244 form to get a hearing at any time you can also highlight just what has been happening and apply for a stay and also an order for them to produce all data and for the receivers to cease and desist any actions until such time as you see they have complied with all data requested..

Edited September 23, 2010 by patrickq1

[chillinlong]

Hi Again,

 

Now it may seem a thick question after the above, but is it possible to revoke the POA even though we have signed this on the contract deeds? If it is, how do we actually do this as the above seems to complicate it?

 

Thanks again

[diddled]

Generally speaking POA is irrevocable and cannot be revoked

 

It can only be terminated on death or incapacity, but the donor's estate still stands liable.

[patrickq1]

i beg to differ the Power of Attorney i have looked at ,has no T&Cs that gives them irrevocable rights ,you are quite right to say they are irrevocable but these documents were signed and this part of the contract has never been pointed out to the clients ,their solicitors may argue that they hold the Power, only if they can provide absolute proof that they are acting in the best interest of both client and themselves, what they are doing is an abuse of their powers and an unfair relationship they are not acting out any sort of compromise they are against compromise and really shirking their responsibilities, so if you send the CPR 31.14 at least you have made them aware that they must comply with the request's that is being asked of them, if they fail to supply all information including all electronic information then you can ask a court to revise the contract as being grossly unfair and damaging to your business, the court has the power to revise any contract and also can force them to back of and put the contract right by removing this POA and i think if a judge see's the results of just what is happening they would vote in favor of the adjustments ...

then you have something to work on also the FSA really need to speak with you in regards to these abuse's i know it takes time but the sooner you ring the FSA the sooner they can act ,

patrickq1

[tarquin999]

Quick update on my cases with Chelsea... Allsop's (the Receiver) solicitor has answered, on behalf of Allsop, my question as to why they did not accept the higher offer from my Buyer.

 

Their reason was absolutely pathetic... that they had no way of telling whether my buyer was "credible". They obviously did not read my emails, faxes, letter and telephone conversations where I went to great lengths to explain that the Buyer was, themselves an FSA Authorised provider of Home Finance! You don't get much more credible than that!

 

And in any case... I am very sure the after-auction buyers will have no "credibility" whatsoever - as they are simply vultures out for a quick killing.

 

What the heck do I do now? They've answered my "challenge" - making my last "Civil Proceedingd" letter to Chelsea (as per patrickq1's draft) redundant. Obviously there is now a claim for "incompetence" because I did explain the buyer's credentials - even provided them with the firm's FSA Authorisation ("FRN") number. They've just ignored it - and are playing ignorant. Is this incompetence, or negligence, or lying? And what can I do about it now?! They think they've given a fair justification of their actions, but to me it just proves their uselessness and unfitness to act with POA!

[patrickq1]

LORD TURNER SAYS

He said the work of the new Financial Policy Committee is crucial as it will fill the previous "underlap" between regulators. He also spoke about the new UK regulatory structure for prudential and conduct of business supervision, highlighting that while the new structure would fill some of the previous gaps between the Bank of England and FSA, it would create new problems in areas where it is not clear whether the new Prudential Regulatory Authority or Consumer Protection and Markets Authority should have responsibility. Andrew Bailey of the Bank of England also spoke on reforming financial stability, the role of the PRA and the importance of dealing properly with struggling institutions.

 

 

 

IT shows that you had supplied the relevant information and it was ignored, thus giving you a right to claim losses that were and have been caused by the negligent handling of your affairs, i would be asking or instructing a solicitor to start actions against BOTH COMPANIES in the chelsea matters...

there haste to sell this property or properties has resulted in a significant loss and will be detrimental to your business,

they chose to ignore the data supplied , send the Solicitors involved the data you gave the companies involved...

this cannot be argued even by their solicitor , so there are other reasons that may not be apparent unless you can find out who the buyer is ,and if you can show an unhealthy relationship then you have even more cause to charge someone with a possible criminal offense and that will damage all concerned..so find out who the buyer is i will do some research on them

patrickq1

 

Background

A written contract will not always refl ect the parties’ actual agreement. Although the courts will not readily accept that contracting parties have made mistakes in formal documents, sometimes it is clear that something must have gone wrong. The question of how to put it right has recently received considerable judicial attention. This Bulletin looks at the principles involved and at two recent decisions in which they have been applied.

In interpreting contracts, English law focuses on the presumed objective intention of the contracting parties. Courts look at the ordinary meaning of the words used and determine what a reasonable person with knowledge of the full factual matrix - that is, all the background information available to the parties - would have understood the words to mean. In order to uphold the objectivity of the test and the benefi ts that it is deemed to bring (above all, certainty and predictability), evidence as to pre-contractual intentions and negotiations is generally inadmissible.

However, where something has plainly gone wrong with the language of the contract, an overly narrow focus on the words can thwart the aim of giving effect to the parties’ objective intentions and would elevate certainty over commerciality. Therefore, the courts sometimes give effect to what the contract should have meant. This is mainly done in two ways. First, the court may deem the words to mean what they should mean (ie, correction by construction). Second, it may rewrite the words to mean what they should mean (ie, rectifi cation). There is a fi ne line between these remedies. Broadly speaking, the former is a way of repairing minor mistakes in drafting, whereas the latter is used where a more fundamental error has occurred in committing the agreement to paper. However, neither approach is an exception to objective orthodoxy; rather, correction and rectifi cation are simply alternative vehicles through which to give effect to the parties’ objective intentions when the written words of the contract fail to do so.

Correction by construction

In the leading case, Lord Hoffmann stated that for a court to correct an error by construction, it is suffi cient for it to be “clear that something has gone wrong with the language” and “clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant”.1 If this is so, there is no limit “to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement or correction which the court is allowed” to ensure that the contract refl ects what the parties must objectively have intended.

Where the English courts embrace this approach to construction - and they appear increasingly willing to do so - the result is more likely to accord with the parties’ actual commercial intentions, rather than those which were erroneously recorded. It also removes the need to meet the higher test for rectifi cation.

State Street Bank and Trust Company v Sompo Japan Insurance Inc

Facts

In this case2 Cheyne CLO Investments Ltd issued fl oating-rate notes in six tranches with varying priorities, due in 2018. The notes were constituted by a trust deed between the trustee, the issuer and Sompo Japan Insurance Inc, the guarantor. The conditions of the notes were set out in a schedule to the trust deed. The notes were secured by total return swaps between the issuer and a swap counterparty.

An event of default arose. The swap counterparty claimed against the guarantor. The guarantor paid the sum claimed and sought reimbursement from the issuer under the terms of a reimbursement agreement.

An issue arose as to whether the guarantor was entitled to the reimbursement. This turned on the defi nition of the term ‘fi nancial guarantee fl oating amount’, which appeared in the conditions, the master defi nitions and the offering circular. The defi nition in the conditions and master defi nitions (ie, the contractual documents) did not refer to amounts payable under the swaps. However, a defi nition in the offering circular, which did not have contractual effect, included that reference.

Decision

The court found that it was clear from a consideration of all relevant documents that an obvious mistake had been made in the contractual defi nition. Without correction, the arrangement would make no commercial sense in the context of the transaction as a whole. The court found that a rectifying construction of the contractual documentation was equally clear: the contractual defi nition could and should be read as if it included a reference to the amounts payable under the swaps. The question of rectifi cation, which had been advanced in the alternative, did not therefore arise.

The case is a clear illustration of how mistakes in writing can be corrected - whatever the extent of the necessary correction - when what the parties meant is clear to a reasonable person looking at all the documents and the factual matrix.

Rectification

Rectifi cation goes further than correction by construction. Rather than looking at the written agreement and trying to make it good though interpretation, the court rectifi es the contract on the basis that, as written, it is fundamentally mistaken. Thus, the focus shifts from an interpretation of the existing language to a more fundamental rewriting of the text.

A party seeking rectifi cation based on a common mistake must show that:

the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not this amounted to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the agreement to be rectifi ed

there was an outward expression of accord

the intention continued at the time of the execution of the instrument for which rectifi cation is sought through error

the instrument did not refl ect the common intention.3

Pre-contractual negotiations are admissible in rectifi cation claims, as such evidence is fundamental to ascertaining the parties’ intentions that were not committed to the fi nal written agreement. However, the continuing common intention must have been objectively manifest. What matters is the “the words and acts of the parties demonstrating their intention, not [their] inward thoughts”.4

The following recent decision demonstrates both the court’s approach to rectifi cation generally and the impact of ‘entire agreement’ clauses in these circumstances.

Surgicraft Ltd v Paradigm Biovices Inc

Facts

In this case5 Surgicraft validly terminated its exclusive distribution agreement with Paradigm on the grounds of Surgicraft’s change of control. The contractual documentation did not provide for compensation in the event of such termination.

The contract also contained: (i) an ‘entire agreement’ clause, which provided that the written terms constituted the “entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersede[d] all prior agreements, negotiations and discussions between the parties relating to it”; and (ii) a clause which provided that the “signing of this agreement implies acceptance of all clauses stated herein”.

Paradigm claimed that there was a mistake in the documentation and that the parties’ continuing common intention had been that termination for a change of control would give rise to compensation. Surgicraft argued that there had been no such intention; even if there had been, rectifi cation was unavailable because the ‘entire agreement’ provision prevented a party from asserting an understanding that was contrary to the terms of the written agreement.

Decision

The High Court found on the evidence that the parties’ continuing common intention was that Paradigm should receive compensation in the event of termination for change of control. Accordingly, it ordered rectifi cation of the written terms to refl ect that intention.

The court found that the ‘entire agreement’ clause was not a bar to this. Its purpose was to “preclude a party … from threshing through the undergrowth and fi nding in the course of negotiations some (chance) remark or statement… on which to found a claim.”6 A claim for rectifi cation, by contrast:

“proceeds on the basis that the parties have made a mistake in expressing their true agreement, a mistake which infects [an entire agreement clause] as much as any other aspect of the agreement.”

Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that an entire agreement clause was relevant in ascertaining the parties’ common intention. Where the contract contained an entire agreement provision as a boilerplate clause, this could not be taken (without more) to indicate the parties’ common intention. However, if there was evidence that the parties had considered the clause as part of their negotiations and had turned their minds to its meaning and effect, it could lead to the conclusion that their objective common intention was to restrict the scope of their contract to the terms of the written agreement, however mistaken such terms might be.

Comment

The overarching endeavour in cases of contractual interpretation is to get as close as possible to the parties’ actual agreement as objectively construed. The construction or rectifi cation of written agreements are simply ways for courts to do this. Together with estoppel by convention, they are safety nets which save agreements from being distorted by errors in committing them to paper.

The recent, more liberal approach to these issues is to be welcomed. As documents that underpin complex deals come under greater scrutiny, it is encouraging to see that the English courts are prepared to take a modern commercial approach to the issues that inevitably arise. Getting as close as possible to actual intentions and agreements, as opposed to applying an overly formulaic and prescriptive focus on the form in which those agreements have come to be recorded, should promote more commercial outcomes in litigation.

However, the courts will not be readily persuaded that parties have made linguistic mistakes and there is an inherent unpredictability in judges’ responses to such claims.

As the House of Lords acknowledged in Chartbrook, the subtleties of language are such that no judicial guidelines or statements of principle can prevent a divergence of opinion as to whether something has gone wrong with the language. Even where such a problem can be established, it is a diffi cult task to prove that, in the face of confl icting written evidence, the agreement was as the challenging party claims that it was.

Parties should be as clear and precise as possible in the drafting of written agreements. However, mistakes will occur. The documentation in the State Street Bank, for example, included over 500 defi ned terms.

It is advisable to keep records, notes and superseded drafts from negotiations. If a dispute arises, parties should think carefully about how best to establish what they say was the actual agreement. In the event that the contractual wording does not assist them in this, the factual matrix and (in rectifi cation claims) evidence of precontractual negotiations may be available to support an alternative, more favourable, reading of the contract. For this reason, parties will often seek both remedies in the alternative. Not only is the threshold for correcting a contract by construction less onerous, but combining it with a claim for rectifi cation will provide the opportunity to put evidence of pre-contractual negotiations before the court, even though it is not technically admissible on the construction argument.

[patrickq1]

The issue is I am not sure how can I actually start the court process . Is it not worth everyone just taking over their properties and then let the Recievers take us all to court and then bring the court to us? Then before this we can request all the paperworks being hidden. the pre action possession protocols do not really exist as it is appointed with LPA recievers rather than undergoing actual repossession.

 

I am thinking is it worth taking them to court or not with a

SAR

as failed to provide all info or just wait until they serve us with injunction then we can request off the court for the lender and reciever to divulge all information?

 

I am wondering what si the actual implications and worst case secnarios when the injunctions are forced upon us, I presume I need to get as much information as possible to convince judge that they are ruining the properties deliberately but it is still a tricky situation as it could seriously backfire with me being in serious contempt of court which is what they are threatening me with.

 

just noticed this chilli, best case scenario would be for the receivers to try take you to court ,this way you have a part defense in the POWER OF ATTORNEY you can ask a judge giving him / her full facts and more to rescind this POA and puts it squarely back in the ME's hands for them to negotiate new terms, also it could make them agree to arbitration and this would serve well for everyone else ,also if you have sent the CPR 31.14 you can show this to the judge to show they have ignored both CPR RULES of engagement and also Flouted the SUBJECT TO ACCESS REQUEST ,whichever way they will have to comply with a judges ruling on these alone

[chillinlong]

Thanks Patrick!

 

With regards to the CPR 31.14 is this a letter I request before any court action starts?

[patrickq1]

its based on what ive written above but will need tidying up so take it to your legal bod and see if they will issue the CPR for you this will shake them up a bit especially if it is issued by a solicitor ,they will have fourteen days ? or is it 21 not sure

patrickq1

it means you mean business and they cannot ignore it

as said above breach of trust and fiduciary duty ,losses are unacceptable under the conditions the receiver is operating under ,

try what ive written below it will need revising in places

patrickq1

 

Name

Address

p.code

phone n.

Mortgage co

Address

 

Addressed to Mr .directors

Ref…property No 1….2

 

 

Civil Procedure

 

Dear Sir

THIS IS A REQUEST UNDER THE

Civil Procedure

RULES. CPR 31.14 DO NOT IGNORE.

 

I am in receipt of your letter-dated xx; this was posted by xx Class post, and was not received by me until xx.

The obvious reason for the delay is it was not sent to my home address or business address but sent to the flat’s address that I own,

This was not done in error! In addition, I point out to you that all previous correspondence has always been to my business address or home address,

never in the years we have had mortgages with you have you used the flat addresses as it is also known if a tenant finds such letters they either throw it in the bin or send back undelivered wrong address,

so on the occasions you have chosen to post mail to these addresses this is a deliberate act and shall be treated as a malicious act against myself,

You have not formally indicated that you were intending to appoint receivers I only found out by chance that this was happening , I am sure that this being a statutory duty that you must comply as a matter in the

interest

of fairness

a) You have not giving me Formal Notice that your receivers ( WALKER SINGLETON/CHELSEA ETC ETC) have been instructed by you to commence receivership against the mortgaged properties that I own, and without delay and you have refused to enter into any sort of mediation I have pleaded with you to come to an arrangement or mediation . You have refused even to acknowledge any correspondence from me.

I am sure that you are aware that I have long since requested from your both yourselves and your appointed receiver, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act), a copy of the agreement to which we are both a signatory and also a copy of the POWER OF ATORNEY to which you are relying on.

To date this has not been provided to me. Whilst I appreciate your client has endeavoured to persuade me that the provision of a copy of an POWER OF ATORNEY form is sufficient to discharge your client from further obligations to mediate with me , likewise I too have explained that I want to come to a settlement or agreement you still refuse to have any conversation with me

Notwithstanding the foregoing and your client's persistent and unexplained and wilful refusal to talk with the Buyer who I had found and wanted to purchase the properties for a sum that was above the asking price yet your appointed receiver carried on and sold the properties for a sum that would be considered below the price range of similar properties in that area , we question this method and ask for an explanation as to why this has occurred, as you are aware a formal complaint has now been entered with both the FSA AND FSO to look into the methods you are employing ( under the permitted omissions under Regulation 3(2) excepted), your client has made plain its intention not to begin legal proceedings against me In consequence, this matter may now be treated as one, which is subject to the control of the

Civil Procedure

Rules.

 

Take notice therefore that under CPR Practice Direction - Protocols paragraph 4.6(a) and (d), I request that you supply copies of the following documents:

 

[1] A true copy of the executed Mortgage agreement incorporating prescribed notices,

terms and conditions

applicable at the time the agreement was executed and

[2] Any further or subsequent notices,

terms and conditions

relied upon i.e.: the POWER OF ATORNEY . I request a full AUDIT TRAIL of all correspondence and all E Mails between myself your Company and the receiver

[3] I request the full data of payments made for each mortgage, to include all charges made by your company and all data and charges made by the RECEIVER to include all repairs and invoices for each separate property.

Please note this request under the Practice Direction is not a request for production within the confines of the Act and Regulations but rather, it is for a copy of the executed agreement, including signatures and all such other notices as in the proof of notification of the appointment of the receiver and under what

terms and conditions

, the terms and conditions as will be relied upon in the event that I shall begin a claim.

 

A copy of all documents to include E Mails invoices and charges made by both yourselves and the receiver,

What I have requested should be supplied to me within 14 days, and you are urged suspend all proceedings and actions of the receiver for a period of not less than 14 days following the supply of those documents to me.

 

Should you or your client elect to ignore my request under the Practice Direction and commence proceedings, I shall repeat my request for the provision of documents under CPR 31.14. In the event that you or your receiver should fail to comply with my CPR 31.14 request.

I shall begin court proceedings, I will not hesitate in making an application to the court for an order to stay any further proceedings, this shall include any and all actions by the receiver and the use of the receiver be stayed pending provision of the requisite documents, in the course of a court application I shall refer to this and previous requests for the provision of copy documents.

 

Please respond within the time stated.

 

Yours faithfully,

[chillinlong]

Thanks again Patrick, the problem is no solicitor will touch it as they want a massive fee just to even look at it.

 

I did contact the FSA who just brushed me off really and said they do not deal with individuals but to complaint to the FOS.

[patrickq1]

yes i understand your situ, FSA have no right to refuse also have you been to your MP yet cause they can make some waves with regards to FSA ,so the letter i have written could be worded a bit better and will suffice for what you need to send to MX and then just wait see what they have to say, also do phone the FOS and see what they have to say

patrickq1

[chillinlong]

I will phone the FOS. Can you believe it the MP I have told and said he wants to help out never bloody rings me back! He only wants to ring back if he knows I can help out with his votes last time but on this case he says oh yeah I will check my diary and then get back to you but typical MP cannot call me back to arrange and I have left him messages.

 

I will reread the thread again and get some letters sent off for the CPR 31.14.

 

But is it worth me taking them to court over the failure to disclose all SAR or leave it until it goes to court?

 

Thanks again, sorry I am a bit thick on this but it is all new to me legal angles etc.

[patrickq1]

go to whatdotheyknow.com and register for free,

then write to your MP but write just stating the fact that you have called for his help on numerous occasions and would like him to respond to can you have a meeting to discus very serious matters...

that will be on an open forum so just put something like i have and believe me he will know his office have to reply and they know it will be on open forum....if he again fails to respond then you can go to the top dog in his party and cause some brownstuff

[chillinlong]

Thanks again PAtrick, I will go and check on this site.

 

When I request a CPR 31.14 can this be done via a simple letter before any court action is due?