experience ?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
i am interested to hear from people who might have had experience of working with Concept Management and/or the Mortgage Victims Asso run.
I may use either one of these and any constructive comments would be welcome.
-- p patel (email@example.com), October 12, 2001
stay away from concept managment I feel I was ripped off £500 from them - All they do is write on your behalf to negotiate a settlement on your alleged mortgage shortfall - Peter Walker of conceptmanagemt will give his yarn that he has copies of all mortgage deeds /MIG policy and will ask for a fee of £750m payaple 250 at instruction, 250 a month later and 250 at conclusion. he is banking that the bank / bs will settle on 10% of amount they are chasing you for - something you can do you self if you wish - in my opinion when it all goes pear shaped and a court summons is issued you want see him for dust - and your £500 also. NAMV offer assurance and correct advice - give them a call.
-- rathernotsay (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 2001.
I second the above..'tis all true.... In my opinion, Concept couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery.
-- Too scared to say (email@example.com), October 12, 2001.
I can only tell you what I have picked up from the web site (esp. Q&A posts) over the past 18 months or so. Peter Walker of Concept Management and Carol Riley of the National Association of Mortgage Victims have rather different reputations, shall we say! As you can see from the posts above, Concept Management appears to have left some rather dissatisfied customers in its wake. Carol Riley, however, is well thought of, and I have spoken to her myself and found her to be throughly informative, energetic and extremely pleasant. Furthermore, Concept Management seem to charge a hefty fee. NAMV ask for a modest contribution toward administrative expenses, I understand.
What's interesting though is that, at a basic level, the approaches that these parties advocate are actually very similar to those advocated by this web site. That is, ask for documentary proof. NAMV set great store on asking to see the Money Judgement Order, on the grounds that (a) if there is no MJO there can be no debt; and (b) most lenders didn't bother getting MJOs in the late eighties and early ninties, especially where voluntary repossessions were concerned. It is my understanding that when some lenders have been asked to produce MJOs, they have suddenly decided that it is 'uneconomical' to pursue the claim any further (please note: they don't drop the claim, they write it off). I believe that Peter Walker tries the same 'strict proof' approach but with MIGs (mortgage indemnity guarantee policies), notably those which pre-date 1993. But please read this Q&A board to see comments on his service over the years.
-- E Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 14, 2001.