Response to Advice needed in re po case

Hi Steve,

First dont panic. - easier said than done and it's always easy for us to tell you what to do but when in same shoes...

If you are not confident of your solicitors ability tell him to (or you) check out 'who helps' on this site - some of them are free of charge organisations and charities and are very good. - contact them.

Points to note when speaking to any of the above or 'helping' your solicitor

Have you a copy of the letter you sent asking for proof in 1998? - This will help you as you are showing that the lender avoided evidencing the debt when you asked - they chose to ignore your request for proof and sit on it for 5 years! the court will be appalled at this as its a tremendous stress in your life and not professional behaviour - this should have been highlighted in your defence (hopefully)

How many letters did they send to you between march 2003 and the court papers arriving - if only one or two then that is demonstrating to a court that the lender and their collector are not following the spirit of lord justice woolfes report. - this should be used as defence.

If still going to court request full disclosure and request an adjourment for receipt of the information in addition to allowing time for the papers to be reviewed - need to check the deed and assignment papers - PLEASE NOTE: CHECK THAT THE ASSIGNMENT DATES AND DETAILS ARE CORRECT WITH THIS CASE (It maybe that CITIBANK do not own this debt anymore so why would they be the claimant) - DISPUTE CLAIM.

I doubt that the 6 year CML undertaking is a possibility on your case. This is because if Citibank are the original lender and the legally entitled claimant they are not a member of the CML and therefore will not honour their undertaking. - companies house is not online whilst typing this - make sure they havent changed their name by checking at www.companieshouse.gov.uk. If they have changed their name is this new name registered as a member of the CML (list at this web link)

http://www.cml.org.uk/servlet/dycon/zt- cml/cml/live/en/cml/about_member_directory?dbcml=

If this new name is on the list then this could ripp into their claim if you did not acknowledge that you owed the money in your letter to them in 1998. - see previous posts regarding cml

Also In June 1991 when the property was repossessed you were already 8 months in arrears - this suggest that if no more payments from you were made and your letter of 1998 disputes the claim (i.e. did not acknowledge the debt) this could cause their claim to be time statued barred.

The way FTS are handling 'negotiations' rises concern and maybe you should check the day before the court hearing to see if FTS have phoned the court to cancel. If you dont get written confirmation from FTS or the court prior informing you otherwise attend at court on day of hearing and explain the situation with help from your solicitor to the judge (DISPUTE CLAIM AND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT ASSIGNMENT PAPERS COULD BE INCORRECT.)

If you goto into court - you must defend - as £45,000 of your mortgage is uncharged (cautions are not the same)

I believe that if this case is examined there will be holes. The way they have now agreed to enter into negotiations suggest that court action was simply a quick and cheap way of dragging you into making an offer.

Normally I suggest that you do things yourself from the fantastic resources on this website but for this one go straight to Who helps?

Good luck, let us know how you get on and if I can be of any further assistance email me.

Good luck

[ Previous | Next ]