Continuation from 8 threads down (Allocation Questionaire) : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

Well the meeting went well, except their resolute idea that the 6 year rule does'nt exist. Interestingly they came back with a case Alexander Grant v Halifax PLC, in the Leeds County Court as a shining example of the 12 years being upheld, has anyone heard of this case. As its only a County Court it's not a precident but it could still have a bearing on things. The most sticky ground that I got them with is the 'Article 6, European Human Rights' this did appear to make them 'sit up and think'. Maes Finance (read Eagle Star) had not done their homework and relied on "We think we have a good case" stone wall reply to everything.

Is it worth keeping case history's of successful or unsuccessful actions as a guide and help to others.

I will keep you posted on developments.

Jon S

-- Jon S (, November 26, 2001


Well done Jon!

Which aspect of their handling of the claim were you telling them was a potential breach of the section 6 of the Human Rights Act?

I ask because we are seeing signs that customers that threaten to use the HRA is a worry for lenders. Meaning, that the customer should counterclaim breach of HRA in response to a claim the lender makes.

The two areas where we are pretty sure customers can probably successfully counter-sue lenders are:

1. if the lender/lawyer had threatened court action if the customer did not fill in and Income & Expenditure form and that form also asked for details of the partner/spuse's finances

2. where the lender/lawyer/debt collector carried out a credit check on the customer that was not in response to a customer request for a loan or account. We're pretty sure most lenders do such credit checks prior to sending out shortfall letters and possibly prior to starting court action. You need to get your credit records from the credit reference agencies to discover this.


-- Lee (, November 26, 2001.

Thank you for your support.

I pointed out that since the sale of the property in 1991 no comunication had been recieved, eventhough the b*****ds still continued to add interest at 7.46% to the shortfall. This was clearly deterimental to myself, as it now stands at 17,000 + and climing. I guessed that this had rattled them when they said "Article 6 only referes to the starting of court precedings after contact" I refered them to Article 6, Section 3 a which states ' (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands adn in detail, of the nature and causes of the accusation against him'. I would like to use this more fully in my defence as i think its the most valuable legislation there has been for years.

My only concern is that can it be retrospective?

Jon S

-- Jon S (, November 26, 2001.

I, somewhere, have a copy of the case. From what I remember the defence case was very weak and was based on the debt being 6 years as the mortgage had been closed due to repossession. In other words, as the house was sold then the mortgage contract was closed and the debt became a simple debt and the 6 yeqar rule applied.

Unfortunately, as we all know, when a repossession occurs the mortgage contract does not close. So in this case the 12 year rule was 'proved?' but this case holds no water when put nect to the CML agreement as it is an entirely different case.

I would ask their solicitors for a copy as they seems to be relying on the case. Once you get it I would ask the relevance in your case.

The lot after me quoted this case and when I had read it I could see nothing in it that proved their case. I asked them to tell me what the connection was and in three letters they duly ignored repeated requests. In my case, famous last words, it has been blissfully quiet since June.

-- Matt (, November 26, 2001.

Well done at least you have them thinking about it!! There is some confusion about 6 years from repossesion date where the debt becomes "simple debt" eligigible for 6 years chasing or 12 years if there is a MIG involved. In my case the Mig covered only the further advance which was paid from the sale proceeds.... the original mortgage shortfall for 45k is now statute barred, after 7 years... please, with other cases, lets force the BS to accept the situation. Lots of others decline and accept a much lesser amount, although still unproven. Why should anyone claim monies against an unproven debt!!?? If they open the case for "x" amount then we should close it, via the courts with an unsubstantiated/undocumented claim!! IMHO

-- (CIBCEARLY, November 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ