When the lender refuses to supply documents but then agrees.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

Just wanted to get a feel for peoples opinions on how a court would view a lender that adamantly refuses to supply documents, but when you start quoting Woolf Reforms, Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act etc etc at them they suddenly come through with something. This something is not usually complete documantation, but it is still something. 1) Will the courts look favourably on the lender for supplying the documents to the borrower. -or- 2) Will the courts look unfavourably on the lender because they could have provided these documents earlier.

-- Tim Heath (tim_n_heath@hotmail.com), February 01, 2001


Yes and yes, are the answers. However, if the Halifax has only come up with some of the documents then you should thank them politely for those and repeat your request for the others. Always keep the ball in the lender's court. That way the judge is always confronted with a lender that hasn't handed over sufficient documentation.

Sufficient = enough to convince you that you should pay their claim to the best of your financial ability.


-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), February 01, 2001.

I would say that complete documentation must include a copy of the mortage deed and conditions, the MIG, and all valuations and associated marketing documents, receipts and paperwork relating to anything you were charged for, eg repairs and insurance policies, *and* an assurance from the lender that it does actually have the originals of these documents which you and your legal representatives can examine by appointment. I would like to see a lender argue an ageing claim in court based on a roll of dusty microfilm! (By the way, if anyone does get taken to court, in my opinion one must insist to the judge that originals are produced by the lender. Don't tacitly accept copies by not making a stand.)

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), February 03, 2001.

Elanor, I note you comments, but one reply that I got from Jacky Jones, to an earlier question that I posted on this board, said that the lender had got a money judgement based upon copies of the mortgage deed. Maybe they *can* do this if you do *not* question the whereabouts of the originals as the judge may just assume that you are accepting the copies in place of the originals? This was why I was trying to start what could be an interesting thread. The more opinions we can get on this issue the better off we will all be. Thanks Tim

-- Tim Heath (tim_n_heath@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.


Yes, this issue of original documents is a very important one. I understand that in at least one case which is relevant to this discussion, the defendant's counsel failed to object to the use of copy documents in court. (One often finds that defendants' counsel fail to do quite a lot of things. It is as though the lenders cannot ever be wrong! I hear too often of solicitors actually encouraging clients to settle on unproven 'debts'.)

Anyway, I think it would be very good to hear more opinions on the use of original/copy documents in court. Could be a very useful thread.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), February 04, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ