Response to Halifax-Offer for settlement

I agree with vonBoot here. Feeling hard done by because circumstances have conspired against us to force many of us into unavoidable repossessions is one thing, but lenders do have rights too, and surely are entitled to pursue these rights in a proper and just manner? What many of us here are objecting to is the delay that has occurred between being reposssed and receiving a shortfall claim, together with dodgy dealings involving resale of our property. My own considered view is that in any dispute (this is true in other fields such as politics, contracts etc..) you are seeking the impossible if you hope to resolve a problem through negotiation by total victory. Time and time again I have seen evidence that supports my belief that dispute resolution is as much about 'saving face' as it is about the relative rights involved. Very few people with shortfall claims against them can state honestly that they got to where they are with no fault of their own. What this site does achieve by power of shared experience is knowledge beyond that of most solicitors. Solicitors are selling a service, but they are also part of a very inefficient system for the resolution of dispute, based on largely adversatorial confrontation. My one experience with engaging a solicitor many years ago to fight a dispute with a neighbour led me to the conclusion that I paid several hundreds of pounds for telling me what I already knew. Perhaps the reason why there is an apparent flood of settlements is that more and more of us are putting forward well constructed arguments for the lenders to face. Bearing in mind that the lenders have managed to cover their so called 'losses' with tax deductions, insurances and other devices, they are still quids in if the settlement is relatively modest. Rather than admit liability I would suggest making an offer to settle as a 'goodwill gesture' to allow closure bearing in mind the damage in creditworthiness terms a lender can exact.

[ Previous | Next ]