Response to MIG Claims

I think I follow you! Basically what is being said, regardless of the question of termination of the contract, is that there must be a clause in the MIG policy that allows the right of subrogation and, presumably, this will show that it is no longer a debt under speciality but a simple debt with a period of 6 years to recover.

This being the case I would think that unless the insurance company can prove, documentation required not a note in a letter, that: 1) There is a contract between me and them 2) The mortgage contract terms are those that the rights of sub allow them

then I can base my case on the fact that it is a simple debt and therefore not recoverable after 6 years - mine is around 10 years ago.

The money judgement part is a strong case for us but, as has bee shown previously, they are allowed to go to court at *any time* and obtain one if they did not originally. They would have to allow you to defend this hearing so my next question is, how would you defend it? Would the fact that 10 years has passed be case enough or would other factors be required. I understand that over 200 'debts' have been written off using this arguement but I am confused by it as the insurance company has said:

'they do NOT need one'

if not, why not. Does the money judgement only apply to lenders and when the RoS are implemented, if it is not required, does this show that it is now separated from the mortgage and therefore a simple debt with 6 years to recover? Do you follow my arguement?

I have e-mailed one of these on-line legal sites to ask about 6/12 years under RoS and, according to their automatic response, will have an answer today. Watch this space!!

[ Previous | Next ]