Halifax plc And Warner Cranston Reed Smith #2greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
unfortunatly the sale was in august 95 so i was within the six years when they re-contacted me, I keep asking about the MIG and what is the "real" amount of shortfall but the keep saying I am not Privy or party to this and under rights of subrogation they can ask for all of shortfall regardless of MIG - is this right?
-- darren law (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 07, 2001
No that is not right,the right of subrogation exists only on behalf of the Mig supplier.If the mig supplier has paid out to the lender then yes the mig supplier may want to chase you and has six years under simple contract from when they made the payment.What happens is the lenders try to recover for the mig insures because the big insures don't seem to want the bad publicity.NO they are quite wrong ask for a breakdown of the debt and all evidence.I bet that they did not obtain a money judgement order at the time,if they did not then they will need one to go back to court.The Lord Chancellors office has said that under new CPR rules (see this page) any case not before a judge in writing before April 2000 is 'stayed' It will cost them dearly to go to court with no guarantee of a result(just the opposite really) and they will have to supply you with all evidence before you attend which will include the terms of the MIg and any payment recived under it.I think that they dont deduct the mig payment to mak ethe claim look big and scary so that you settle for laess anf feel good about it.Admit to nothing and kep demanding demanding.Eventually the solicitors will drop out and they will pass it to a debt collection agency to try more bully boy tactics.jst keep rebutting if they were going to do something they would have by now.Keep watching the page
-- roger watts (email@example.com), August 07, 2001.