Mark,(posted 7766 days ago)Could you clarify this point for me please. A husband and wife take out a mortgage, they have the property repossessed in Sept 1995, and then separate a year later. The lender traces the wife and harrasses her into making monthly payments, although she completely denies the debt on the grounds that:- 1. the lender sold the MIG to the borrowers under fraudulent circumstances. 2. The lender undersold the property by at least 10K. 3. The lender updated the MIG after repossession, paying the difference of the higher premium themselves, but added the full amount claimed to the "shortfall debt" of the borrower. 4. The lender refuses to supply a copy of the MIG and Mortgage Deed, . 5. The borrower believes that not all documents were produced in response to a SARN, and feels certain that some relevant paperwork was deliberately with-held.
The wife stops the monthly payments and asks the lender to prove their shortfall claim, with proof by means of invoices, relevant paperwork and bank statements. After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of letters, the wife offers the lender 500 pounds, which the lender immediately accepts (still without proving the debt in any way) and the money changes hands, along with a letter from the lender stating that they will now persue the husband for the balance.
From your point, although the 12 year limitation period would expire in Nov 2007 (12 years from 2nd default on the mortgage), through the wife having paid 1100 pounds towards the alleged 30K debt, the husband would now be soley liable for 28900 pounds for another 12 years from the date the cheque was cashed. So if he enters into correspondence with the lender, they have ANOTHER 12 years in which to make up more lies and get other parties to write letters to substantiate their fairy tales. Is this correct? And if so, how does the 6 year Mortgage Council "Amnesty" stand?
Tracey