what do we do next,DLA are chasing on behalf of Abbey Nationalgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
One year ago we recieved a letter from DLA asking us to repay £32000 on a flat we bought in 1991.In 1995 we handed the keys back in using Union fianances MIG Policy.To keep a long story short after 1 year of letters to and from DLA they have said we can pay £14000.They also said that a lump sum of £7000 would bring this matter to an end.Unfortunatly we have not got £7000 and offered £2500,they refused our offer and replied we will have to pay £100 a month off our debt of £14000.This would take 14 years to clear the debt and i dont have £100 to spare a month (i wish i did).We have recieved all the information about our property ie: the valuation report and whom it was sold to.We dont know what to do or say next,we want to bring this matter to an end,as one year of stress is enough for anyone,please halp if you can.
-- Gary Gudgeon (email@example.com), January 06, 2001
You say you have seen 'all the information' about the property, but this appears to comprise just one valuation report.
You are entitled to put Abbey to 'strict proof' before you even consider making any settlement, and you should ask to see the documents on which Abbey's claim is based. These include the mortgage deed and conditions and the MIG policy. You might also ask to see the money judgement (if Abbey has one). The reasons why are detailed on this site under 'Repossession', and you *must* read this section.
If Abbey refuse you sight of these documents then you should ask yourself why. (Again, see under 'Repossession'.)
By the way, you are probably six years from the point at which you defaulted on the mortgage leading to repossession, or from the repossession itself (or soon will be). This is why you need to see your mortgage deed, to see whether Abbey really is entitled to go after you after six years. Again, there's more on this HRP site about all this.
As for the valuation: Why was there just one valuation? Was it fair? Did it judge the property as a repo or as a 'normal' house (ie was the valuer aware that the property was a repo - I'll guess that s/he was well aware and underpriced it accordingly.) Did the valuer have any connection with Abbey or estate agents linked to Abbey? Was the property actually marketed properly?
Did you receive the proper, full statutory instruments of notification, and were these sent on time and to the correct address? (Again, see this site under 'Repossession'.)
Until you see the evidence that you do actually owe the money Abbey claims you owe, in my opinion (and I must stress that this *is* just my amateur opinion) the ball is in Abbey's court. If it were me I wouldn't admit any liability, make any offers of settlement, and I certainly wouldn't fill out an Income and Expenditure form.
I know it's a stressful situation, but, in my opinion, it's possible that this may be what some lenders and their firms of debt-collecting lawyers depend upon to get vulnerable people to cough up on unproven 'debts'.
You have got to learn to live with this. Read this site from top to bottom. Ask for support via this Q&A board when you need it.
And good luck.
-- Eleanor Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2001.
Dont' run the limitation argument especially as you have made an offer of payment. such offers are usually made out of fear and an open ended payment schedule as you describe is unlawful. It is very sad to read that so many of you are floundering around out there at the mercy of debt collectors who are chasing an unsubstantiated claim. NAMV has had tremendous success in cancelling these debts. Just because someone sends you a bill it does not mean that you owe the money. you may owe all or non. these debt collectors do a wonderful job in intimidating you in the full knowledge that you probably can't afford to employ a solicitor and that it is highly unlikely that you know your rights. out of sheer fear thousands of you are making arrangements to repay something which you may not owe. you are probably terrified to open the mail or answer the telephone. Contact NAMV 01889 507394
-- Carol Riley (NAMV@ukf.net), February 06, 2001.
I would have to agree with Carol that you should not *soley* rely on limitation periods as this is an unproven area. Howewever it is a good arguement if you have plenty of other defences to rely on ie fraud, negligence etc. It could prove to be the camel that broke the camels back and if it is in your defence and *if* it goes to court the judge may just finally rule on it (The lenders would hate to gamble on this). I would suggest that you try to contact Carol and see what she has to say. I have seen some reports on this site that she is very busy and can be exremely difficult to get a hold of. Any advice that you get from anywhere ask for substantiation ie what is the basis for that advice. Advice without substantiation is no more than opinion and you would not look good in court if you said "I feel the lenders claim is unjustified bcause of ........." and then couldn't provide a reason why.
-- Tim Heath (email@example.com), February 06, 2001.