Steve,(posted 7641 days ago)Don't forget that when a lender obtains a MIG it may not necessarily cover any amount a shortfall happens to be. In your case, I would suppose, the maximum the lender could claim under the insurance policy was 8K. I think it's a positive sign from the lender that they say you may be able to settle for a vastly reduced sum.
I think you're quite right to ask for proof that they tried to contact you. Any lender can say 'well we rang you various on various occasions' or 'we wrote to you'. The real proof, as you say, is a recorded delivery letter. I think it's a point more people could possibly argue. The CML say:
"Following the sale of a property in possession, lenders often find it difficult to contact the former borrower to advise them of any surplus monies or shortfall debt. Lenders use a variety of measures to identify where the individual is now living. This might include using tracing agents. Situations can arise where a lender or its third party agent is trying to contact the individual (for example, by letter or telephone) to discuss repayment of the shortfall, but the individual simply chooses to ignore such contact. This is despite the fact that the contact is being made at the individual's new address. In these cases, lenders will consider that contact has been made for the purposes of the new six year limit. If an individual is unclear whether contact has been made within the six year period, the lender will be able to confirm the position."
If a lender only has to say they contacted you and not have to produce a recorded delivery letter, for example, to proove it, then I believe this CML 6 year voluntary code is virtually WORTHLESS. In my opinion this CML agreement only came about due to pressure from the Government, media and organisations such as the CAB. What can we do to stop all this bad publicity they thought? Ah yes! Create a 6 year voluntary code which hardly helps anyone but sounds great and shuts everybody up. Or am I being too cynical? Any more comments?
Mark.