All these lenders reckon they follow the Mail on Sunday's 5 point plan. To whit, they will:

(1) Treat customers sympathetically

(2) Provide proof and evidence of debts when requested by the customer

(3) Look again at all outstanding debts to reach compromise

(4) Inform borrowers of their debts as soon as properties are sold, and offer 'breathing space'

(5) Ensure that it is clear MIGs are for lenders' benefit

Well, if any of the above doesn't ring true with you, they why not email the Mail on Sunday journalists involved? If they are being conned by the lenders, I'm sure they'll want to hear about it. Please email Clare.Hall@mailonsunday.co.uk and Sally.Hamilton@mailonsunday.co.uk and Jeff.Prestridge@mailonsunday.uk and write to your lender asking them to justify these public claims in the national press. Thank you.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), October 15, 2000

Answers

I've just emailed the journalists a copy of my posting "The HALIFAX - UNTRUTH or LIE" as proof of why I don't believe the Halifax are abiding by this new 5 point plan.

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 15, 2000.

In answer to the 5 point plan. 1)They are so sympathetic that over the phone their solicitor told my husband that we should be grateful that they may consider 50%( then refused to repeat it!) 2)When we asked for a copy of the repossession and money judgement order we were told that it could not be found! 3)A compromise was " our clients would normally accept 50%) 4)We had no idea our house had been sold until we were introduced to the new owner some 4months later in the pub. 5)The first time we new anything about a MIG was when we were contacted by Eversheds on behalf of the lenders insurers. If the Abbey thinks it is complying with this then it must be dyslexic! Jacky.

-- jacky jones (jackycolin.jones@virgin.net), October 15, 2000.

1) Treat customer sympathetically. The Halifax put two children basically on the street, then gave my husband and myself 72 hours to come up with 3200.00, when we had offered to pay the arrears but sell the property ourselves. 2) Proof of evidence. The Halifax only listed a row of numbers and descriptions but no evidence to prove the figures. 3) Look again at outstanding debts and reach a compromise. The Halifax have agreed to take 50% of the shortfall, but would (it seems) not accept the once and for all settlement unless we filled in a S.O.F. which asked for Bank Account Details and also the Reg. Number of our car. 4) Inform borrowers of their debt as soon as the property is sold. The Halifax did not inform us that the property was to be sold in the first place and then it took a phone call from my husbands ex-wife to ask us to store her stuff in our garage the day before she was to be evicted. We knew nothing about the mortgage problems or the repossesion. We were notified approx. 10 months after the sale. 5) Ensure that MIG is for Lenders' benefit. Cannot acctually comment on that until we get the Subject Data Access report back from the Halifax as my husband cannot remember whether he paid that or not.

Never the less to say that the Halifax follow the 5 points is a joke. 4 out of 5 they do not follow ( unless they do their sums they way they balance the books when it comes to the shortfall figures)

-- christine singleton (singletons51@hotmail.com), October 16, 2000.

Well what do you know - more proof that the Halifax does not in fact subscribe to the 5 point plan as they have publicy stated in the Mail on Sunday. Maybe they only actually follow the plan on Sundays!

I should think though that we should really be more fair to the Halifax because in my case they excelled themselves on point 4). They actually went one better than other lenders and in fact kindly informed me well in advance of my "debt" by writing to me only 2 days after putting the property on the market, warning me that if I didn't arrange to pay the "ESTIMATED" #16,959.59 within 14 days, solicitors and debt collectors would be chasing me!!! I find it exceedingly efficient of them to be able to estimate this alleged debt in advance down to fifty nine pence accuracy - amazing accountancy! Odd is it not, that they "forget" how to be so precise in their later staements?

Regarding point 5) of the plan. I bet if you went out in the street tomorrow and asked passers by whether they knew what a MIG was and had they ever paid for one that they'd answer; "Why would I ever want to buy a Russian warplane?" I'm certainly still not aware if I ever had one but don't forget some lenders often changed it's name during the life of a mortgage.

The way bankers do their sums has been questioned. Well walk into a bank, what do you see? 8 windows but only 5 cashiers! Enough said!

Regards,

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 16, 2000.

Just in case the Halifax even remotely imagines I was actually praising them for their actions in the response above.

"Never a truer word was spoken in jest"

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 16, 2000.

Sorry, Jeff Prestridge's address above should be: Jeff.Prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), October 17, 2000.

There's also a case to be made for complaining about this article, which contains inaccurate and misleading statements likely to distress vulnerable people, to the Press Complaints Commission. They have a web site (www.pcc.org.uk/) but complaints must be in writing. Write to: PCC, 1 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8JB. The articles which contains the misleading statements may well breach the PCC Code Article 1 on Accuracy.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), October 22, 2000.