[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to I dont want to say | Help ]

Response to CML Code

from I dont want to say (idontwanttosay@who.com)
Sorry to contradict - it is the lenders decission and if your sarn evidences even one debt letter for the shortfall, irrespective of who sent it, then the cml policy undertaking is not relevant.

Quite simply I have never heard of one single person who has received confirmation from a lender or their representatives that no further action will be taken due to the CML's policy. Its a load of bullshit to sweeten polititians and thus slow down legal reform of our limitation laws.

The law says lenders have 12 years since the last cause of action for monies secured on property with a deed. CML policy does not stand up in defence if the lender chooses to take you to court.i.e. if the lender believes it is worth taking you to court.

The CML will not intervene, unless there is blatent abuse and you have evidence in your possession.

In your case the CML would simply reply that their member sent you a letter in 1999 and therefore the lender attempted to pursue you for the shortfall within 6 years of the date of your property being sold.

As for solicitors requsting evidence of recorded delivery for a letter which is after all a non legally binding agreement (CML policy) - in replying to a solicitor who challenges them regarding recorded delivery - the lender could reply that this is not a requirement and whilst there is no evidence of recorded delivery there is also no evidence on file to suggest that the borrower never received the letter! i.e 'gone away' - sly I know but when was a lender anything but.

Posted to the last known address is enough for judges.

For information the only item needing to be sent recorded delivery is the statutory notice (notification of the sale of your repossessed property) as per the building societies act (but this is only for Building Societies and not BANKS!).

Sorry

(posted 7408 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]