royal & sunalliance shortfall claim

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

The Royal & Sunalliance are chasing me for a 12,000 shortfall debt accrued in 1993.They contacted me after the cml deadline , when my solicitor told them i was within the cml agreement they started coming up with bogus letter claims , dates and innaccuracies that seem really pointless. I am at my wits end . Should i tell them to put up or shut up ? please help!!

-- richard king (BIGRED@GSXR60012.FREESERVE.CO.UK), November 30, 2000

Answers

Your solicitor seems to be well aware of the current situation regarding the CML's statements on time limitations. So I believe you should rely on your solicitor to investigate their bogus letter claims, dates and innaccuracies.

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), November 30, 2000.

I am being chased by the RSA via a firm called Experto Credite and solicitors EJ Winter. I too am using, as one of my arguements, the fact that the letter I received came after the CML deadline but they say they have been in 'contact' with me since 1998 - they argue that as they sent letters to an address at which I was not resident that 'contact' had been made. In all they sent 9 lettes to that address with all sorts of threats including saying that High Court action had een started.

I have asked why they sent letters when they would have been returned, why they continued after they had supposedly sent a rep around and if any court action did actually take place. In adition as the letters they have sent copies to me of have large hole in time and are obviously incomplete I have also asked for ALL correspondance between 1998 and October 2000 when 'contact' was actually made.

They have not yet replied to my letter of 2 weeks ago which, for them, is very slow indeed as letters were coming up to twice a week.

It would be interesting to hear about all the letters they supposedly sent you and how things progress. You can e-mail me directly or post on the web-site.

My personnal opinion, as their letters sent to the wrong address show, is that they are more than likely NOT going to take any court action and are trying to find out if you can afford the debt (I presume they have said 40% of the sum is okay in full and final payment) and whether or not you will fight them.

It is very difficult having this hanging over you but you learn to accept it as part of your life (well I am, slowly). I understand exactly how you feel - try not to let it get to you - that is what they want.

-- Matt (mattyc@ntlworld.com), November 30, 2000.


Sorry, forgot to add, have a look at an older entry (about 20 down the Q&A page called I now have copies of old letters

There may be stuff on here to help you.

Also, contact you MP. You will probaly have read on this site about the EDM and what is happening. I am in contact with my MP who is being very helpful.

-- Matt (mattyc@ntlworld.com), November 30, 2000.


Proof of posting a letter isn't proof of delivery - I bet they can't come up with certificates of posting/recorded delivery receipts for these alleged letters! Don't give up and don't give in!

Your solicitor seems to be on the ball here, so let him/her do the investigating.

-- pendle (pendle@amun-ra.demon.co.uk), November 30, 2000.


Richard,

By the way, is this a mortgage shortfall 'debt', or are Royal & Sun Alliance after you for money paid out on a MIG?

(As it happens there's lots of useful stuff on both situations throughout this Q&A borad and under 'Reposession' on this site, including the 'six/twelve year rule'.)

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), December 06, 2000.



I'M NOT SURE WHAT A MIG IS .PLEASE TELL ME . IT IS THE INSURANCE FIRM WHO HELD THE INDEMNITY POLICY AND PAID OUT TO THE HALIFAX WHO ARE AFTER THE SHORTFALL .

-- R.KING (BIGRED@GSXR60012.FREESERVE.CO.UK), December 08, 2000.

The MIG is the Mortgage Indemnity Insurance which you paid for. The policy, like mine, was with Royal and Sun Alliance.

Hope all is going okay.

PS Did the letters that they say they sent you a while ago but to another address include ones from another solicitors who are now not involved? Mine did and these were from a firm in Manchester called Michael Taylor. I may have some info on Monday when I speak with his secretary again. I will let you know.

-- Matt (Mattyc@ntlworld.com), December 08, 2000.


Richard,

There is now some new information on this web site about MIGs. You should read this. It's under Repossession, in a section called 'Why lenders refuse to supply documents'.

I am not surprised you were at your wits' end if you didn't have basic information about MIGs.

Hope this helps.

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


A 'debt' accrued to RSA in 1993 is bound to be MIG money, in which case it's likely to be a simple debt and statute-barred by reason of limitation (i.e. they're out of time).

Any thoughts on this?

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), June 17, 2001.


Exactly my thoughts - simple debt it seems to me is what the shortfall becomes as soon as the lender is not involved as the insurance company chases the insurance payout.

All the indicators point to this and an answer I got from a legal web site suggested this may be the case as did a government department. The later said it was the case in commercial law and therefore could not see it being different in residential law.

I have tried to get RSA to make comment on this and have even gone at them head on with text to the effect of simple debt, I think I found the basis for it on this site, but as like anything that may be a bit close to the mark they just ignore it.

-- Matt (mattyc@ntlworld.com), June 18, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ