Repossessed 1994 - any way forward?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
Hello everyone.. As the heading says, my property was repossessed in 1994, and over these last several years, my lender (NatWest Bank, as was) and I have been going through the usual motions of the obligatory letters every six months, "How much can you afford to pay us this time?" etc. The question is, with the amount that is now outstanding (some £55k), I wouldn't like to insult anyone's intelligence in pointing out that this sum is hardly ever going to be paid back before I'm 106! With what I pay, the quarterly interest wipes it out, and I feel I'm heading in the time-honoured tradition of "one step forward and a couple back". I must admit I'm pretty green with this subject (wrong, I know) but would there be another way forward in trying to get on top of this? BTW, I am still talking (however strained) to lender, in some way. Look forward to hearing from someone - thank you.
-- Paul Kempton (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 02, 2002
You need to read the Repossession section and the Do's and Don'ts pages within it. It contains the combined experience and suggestions (note that that is experience and suggestions, not legal advice) of many people who have been or still are in positions similar to yours.
With regard to whether you have admitted liability or not - see a lawyer. As far as I know this area of law remains murky in the context of repossession shortfall cases.
I have some research that shows that most settlements that are accepted are between 8.5% and 10%. Most repossessees that offer a settlement *that is rejected* offer around 6%. So there's an argument for saying that your chances of having a settlement accepted greatly increase if that settlement is 10% but remain low if that settlement is 7%. This suggests that you do not need to offer 20%.
Note that people who settle with Halifax and to whom Halifax had sold a MIG provided by RSA (Royal and Sun Assurance) are much more likely to find that RSA subsequently chases them for more money after the repossessee has settled with Halifax.
For this reason, I suggest that:
1. No-one should offer Halifax any shortfall settlement - keep fighting instead.
2. No-one touches, or advises friends/family, to go to Halifax for financial products
3. No-one touches, or advises friends/family, to go to any lender that uses RSA for financial products
4. No-one touches, or advises friends/family, to go to RSA for financial or insurance products
-- (email@example.com), May 02, 2002.
Hi Paul, Sounds like you could have done with visiting this site before. It appears from what you say that you have at some point acknowledged the shortfall liability claimed by NatWest and have been paying them money at irregular intervals. You don't say how often or how much you have paid them, although you state £55k as the residual claim.
General advice / consensus elsewhere on the site suggests that most lenders will settle for a one off lump sum payment of up to 20% of the 'debt' and accept this as full and final settlement.
It would be worthwhile in your case I think to look at the section on repossession and see if you can use any of the advice about putting your lender to work in justifying the claim they are trying to get you to pay. Did they sell your property fairly for example? If it was undersold then you could put pressure on them to reduce the amount they are claiming.
They do seem to have you where they want you though ie. compliant and dutifully coughing up money every so often. If you ultimately decide that they have acted completely correctly in your case and that their claim is valid, I would try offering them a low lump sum FINAL payment of maybe 5% and see if you can negotiate closure. Paying them ongoing amounts will keep you in this mess for years and years as they have plenty of staff and incentive to keep it going.
-- Gordon Bennet (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 02, 2002.