MJO's, MIG's, Proof of LIability and some thoughtsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
1) This is required by the lender in order to allow them to recover the shortfall and should be obtained at the repossession hearing or shortly afterwards if they do not have one they will have difficulty in getting a court to rule in their favour.
2) It is not required by the insurance company once payment has been made on the policy as the mortgage has been closed and the recovery is now insurance monies. Due to this it is no longer a speciality debt but a simple one with a six year time limit from the date of payment under the insurance policy.
If being chased by the insurance company you must know the date of payout – mine keep ignoring this request. The lender , in theory, has six years to claim on the policy, making a total of 12 years from repossession, before it is too late but would require sounds reasons for delaying any claim.
The MJO is only of relevance if the lender is chasing for the mortgage monies or they are claiming on the MIG (no MJO + claim paid = insurance company negligent). Insurance companies do not need one – can anyone get Carol Riley’s thoughts on this as she seems to know these things but I cannot seem to contact her?
This is a vital document. It is referred to by the chasers, on behalf of the insurance company, in their letters as the reason why they are writing and must therefore be produced in any legal action. It is also referred to in the original Loan Agreement that allows a third party to become involved if the mortgage is not paid. If this document is not produced there are no other documents that prove that the debt is real and that the person being chased is liable.
Proof of Liability
Why do companies write letter after letter demanding payment whilst not supporting these letters with documentary proof that the debt exists? It would be far easier for all involved if they sent proof of a claim with the letter so the person being chased had no choice but to negotiate with them or be taken to court where they would be found guilty.
They do not have the documents.
They will not supply them as older versions contain text that disproves their claim.
Many documents are incomplete.
These are my educated thoughts after a while of writing letters, e-mails and speaking to people I know who have some legal knowledge.
No one I know will accept a figure on a letter as proof they owe the money – they will want evidence. Companies do not supply the evidence as they cannot – debts were written off long ago and many documents disposed of. They then decided to chase them in the hope that people would be scared enough to pay without a fight.
Dates are not given as the person will then know exactly when the 6/12 year period expires and can keep communication going until that happens.
If the companies (there have been 5 in total so far, including 3 solicitors!!) chasing me had the proof they could have started legal proceedings long ago as they would be certain of winning. They have not done so and, in my opinion, never will as they have been non cooperative throughout and do not have the documents required.
That’s all from me for now – over to the rest of you. All your thoughts and comments on all of this would be good, not just for me, but for every reader of this site who is being chased for these alleged debts.
-- Matt (email@example.com), May 10, 2001
Very interesting thoughts Matt but the MJO theory still doesn't hold up. We were repossessed in '89, no MJO, contacted in '97 by Eversheds on behalf of the Insurers for 27k, therfore we assumed that there had been a MIG payout, argued back and forth until '99 when the Lenders obtained an MJO in court. Obviously this holds with your idea that if the Insurers are after you they can only chase for 6 years, so, they pass the debt back to the Lender because he can chase a speciality for 12 years. Now the next bit is my opinion only and pure supposition, the Lender chases the * supposed debt * on the understanding that should they obtain an MJO and recoup any of the money, then they will take a percentage of that money for their trouble and pay the rest back to the Insurance Company. The actual documentation for our repossession no longer exists, from what I have been told by the Lenders Solicitors for that time, they were never received back from the Court. All this was ignored by the Judge at the '99 hearing,sadly they tend to think that a reputable Mortgage Lender is unlikely to be on the fiddle!
-- jacky jones (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 10, 2001.
The nature of a debt cannot change back and forth from simple to specialty. There is no legal vires I know of that would allow this. If the MIG paid out, and the Insurer passes the debt or a proportion of it back to the Lender under Rights of Sub, the Lender only has 12 years to chase the proportion *not* covered by the MIG payout. The rest falls under the 6 year rule. I am sure this is why a lot of the older repo's settle for such small amounts, when you look at the original sum they claim. MIG payouts were quite high at the beginning I bet - then the amount of payout tapered off as more claims were made.
-- Too scared to say (email@example.com), May 10, 2001.
Jacky, re: actual documentation for your re-po. You have been told by the Lender's solicitors that the actual documentation no longer exists and endorse this claim by blaming the court for not returning them.(I suppose that it is too much to hope that the solr's would have taken steps themsleves to retrieve the documents.) This seems to me to be an excuse as they know the documents should still be available for scrutiny. How else can a claim for the 'debt' be proved? Do you , or anyone out there, know how long the law requires actual documents relating to re-po's to be kept for? Where the judge is concerned maybe he should change his patronising attitude and join us all in reality. Joy.
-- Joy Harker (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 10, 2001.
I do know that the Courts only keep the documents for three years. Well, they do down here.
-- jacky jones (email@example.com), May 10, 2001.
I believe most "business" documents fall under the six year rule - that is a business must keep them in/on a retrievable format for six years. This is certainly the case for books and records and tax documents.
Jacky - I would ask for a judicial review of your case. The judge erred legally in granting a MJO without documentary evidence of the debt. From my previous working life (pre-repo days) I know there is no way this would stand up to appeal.
-- Too scared to say (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 11, 2001.
Jacky's MJO was granted before CPR came into effect. I really do wonder if it would be granted in today's climate, especially with the Human Rights Act 'guaranteeing' us all a fair, impartial hearing.
Anyway, I don't think anyone's suggesting that the nature of debts can change back and forth. Simply that if there's been a MIG payout, it can't be reclaimed from the ex borrower after six years.
As most shortfall chases may well be undertaken because of pressure from the insurance companies, this suspicion of ours might make us look at the lenders and MIG companies in a less intimidated light.
Jacky (I believe) is plausibly suggesting that the lender takes over the chase because it can give us this '12 year' speech (semi-believable about certain types of mortgage debt), and thus hopes to intimidate people into making settlement offers. That's in my humble, non-expert, opinion, of course.
-- Eleanor Scott (email@example.com), May 20, 2001.
The only thing I can say is, when the first contact was made in '97 it was " on behalf of the Insurers " and because we refuted it and asked questions- all Court transactions were instigated by the Lender! Hey presto! The Insurers disappeared! In my opinion and without prejudice "It stinks! "
-- jacky jones (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 20, 2001.
I agree - but I think based on reading stories on this site and my own experience that "changing the nature" of the debt is precisely what the Lender's try to do on the quiet. You are spot on when you mention intimidation Eleanor. They do intimidate - letters demanding extortionate sums after years of silence can all but shatter your confidence and bully people into admitting to and agreeing to repayments that are not only unreasonable but legally questionable in my view. How many of the Lenders would acknowledge that the portion recovered under a MIG payout would be out of time after six years? Out of interest, has anyone had a letter adjusting the shortfall amount for the MIG payout after six years has expired? Another thought (I am thinking and typing at the same time so forgive the erratic post!) but if, hypothetically speaking, someone were to have a letter which acknowledged that payout under a MIG had been made but that any future payments recovered by either the Lender or the Insurer would be apportioned between them [Lender & Insurer] as and when received...surely the alleged shortfall balance after the MIG payout has to be "simple" and covered by the six year rule? Otherwise how would any party be able to determine what proportion of a recovered payment related to the mortgage element and what proportion to the MIG? For example, take those people conned into making 50 quid a month payments forever. How much of the fifty quid is the Insurers (MIG applicable - 6 years and debt simple) and how much the Lender's (specialty and 12 years? Since the Lender is always quoting Rights of Sub when they chase you, the alleged shortfall has to be recovery under the part of the legislation which covers a debt simple at that point. Would the Lender then say after six years..well keep coughing up the fifty quid as the rest of the shortfall has switched back and now falls under specialty again because the Insurer is time barred? I cannot fathom how that would stand up legally. Or am I missing something? Any thoughts?
-- Too scared to say (email@example.com), May 20, 2001.
I actually think you're on to something. Like I mentioned before, I only found out that I was actually a 'MIG case' by SARNing Abbey National, and insisting that they explained the little code hidden away which said 'catgeory 40.1'. Seems odd to me that a lender would go to such apparent lengths to (in my opinion) keep quiet about my MIG status, unless there was a very good reason for it so doing.
-- Eleanor Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 2001.
Eleanor - and please reply privately if you'd prefer - did you ever find out how much your MIG payout was and when it was made? Would that not be information to which you have a legal entitlement these days? After all, the two parties in your case would have corresponded on the matter and the payout would be logged somewhere in the Insurer's records and be subject to your access rights under the rules. Although I have no written record from the Lender in my [very extensive] files on my case, I recall a phone conversation in which a figure of 11,000 MIG payout was mentioned way back when. I dispute(d) my shortfall on these grounds: the blatent undervaluation, some of the extortionate interest charges as well as "grass cutting" costs (which surely must have belonged to Hyde Park and not my little place,) drains which miraculously blocked in an empty property within days of my leaving and my all time fave - front yard flower bed re-planting (it wasn't my front garden - belonged to the other half of the property). I calculated the MIG payout which I *wish* I had got some record of and less all of the above it totally wiped out any alleged shortfall and actually left a positive balance. I bet yours would do the same.
-- Too scared to say (email@example.com), May 28, 2001.
I think I follow where this thread has gone.
I have a date of payment and an amount of payment made on the MIG.
The insurers are the ones after me as the Halifax cannot as it said a while ago (Dec 1999 I think) that those they have not contacted they will not chase if more than 6 years. This was in addition to the CML agreement.
Is it therefore correct that as the 'debt' being chased is ALL insurance payout - so they say - that it is definately 'simple debt' and therefore they have 6 years from the date payment was made to the lender.
-- Matt (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 30, 2001.
I have only just found this site after being harrrassed for years by Curtis Solicitors.They reckon i owe £20,000 for an insurance claim made by halifax to sun allience after a property was voluntary handed back in1990.halifax sold the flat,without discussing it with us,now my ex is dead and I have been told all the money can be claimed againest me.Is this true!
-- barbie sheargold (email@example.com), February 20, 2002.