Response to SARN- ABBEY NATIONAL

*********** I am not a lawyer - this is only my opinion *********** The insurance company have granted the Abbey "Rights of Subrogation" which is a fancy legal term for allowing another party to collect the debt on their behalf. Yes "they" (the insurance co and also the Abbey) will chase you after only four years - primarily because the insurance co wants to recover as much of what it paid out to the Abbey as it can (usually to cover spurious admin costs) and the Abbey want what I consider to be blood money - their % cut of the amount they recover. They have instructed DLA and are DLA's client. The Abbey have been paid - and I would argue that the MIG payout they are chasing for the insurance co is a debt simple. Creditors have six years to chase debts simple - but I should stress this MIG theory has yet to be tested in court. The MIG payout was not as a result of a transaction made under seal as with a mortgage - it's an insurance claim, pure and simple. The nature of the "debt" changes when the Abbey are paid an amount under the MIG policy as far as I am concerned. The thinking is that satisfaction of the primary debt, the shortfall, has occurred when monetary consideration changes hands between the insurance co and the Lender. It would be the same if your rich Granny coughed up and paid it - the shortfall is satisfied. The hiccup in this is the Rights of Sub issue, which may or may not grant the insurance co all the rights of the Lender. I cannot see this as being a valid argument, if the shortfall is already paid in full or in part by the MIG. At the outside Rights of Sub could only apply to the portion of the shortfall not covered by any MIG payout. Specialty debts (which they will argue the MIG payout is) have a twelve year shelf life under the 1980 Limitation Act. There is some debate as to whether this twelve year time limit is overturned by a Money Judgement Order and can subsequently be extended indefinitely. Whilst I do not agree that this could be upheld in Court,it would be remiss of me not to mention it. I believe a concerned solicitor maybe looking at this issue.

I would write back to the Abbey and ask them for the missing marketing information as your house was undoubtedly undersold. I would also ask which insurance company has granted them Rights of Subrogation, although I am sure other Abbey victims can tell you on this BB. If there is no real shortfall to recover aside from the MIG payout, I would stand firm on this one. They may eventually settle for a fraction of the MIG payout, which I would reluctantly suggest you think about AFTER the Appeal Court rules on those cases currently before them in July. I hope and pray that one of them may finally address the 6/12 year rule.

[ Previous | Next ]