National Home Loans!*$*!!**$! : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I am being pursued by this company for an alleged shortfall debt of 7115 (after MIG paid up 9458). To cut a very long and from reading other cases on this site, very common story short, my ex and I gave back our property voluntarily in 1993 because we had to move North due to work committments. We bought the property for 38,000 and had recieved three offers for the property within ten months first for 31,000, then 32,000 then 30,500. Our Estate Agent had valued it at 33,000. All buyers lost interest because NHL took months to answer our request to sell with this shortfall. I have had SARN papers and going through them I find that there were several valuations made, all giving different figures - the best being 33,000 the worst being 27,000. There is nothing concerning there reasons for not replying each time we had an offer and one valuation report at the time we were offered 30,500 stated quite clearly to them that the best price our property could reach without repossession was 32,000 but after repossession it would be reduced to 29,000. There was a note on file (from someone) requesting that given this information, they should let us sell NOW! This never happened and we eventually handed back the keys because of there indecisiveness and taking so long to make a decision (some ten months!)that we lost three purchasers!!! There is a copy of a letter to NHL from the Estate Agents we employed telling them that they believed 32,000 was the absolute best price we could get for our property (THEY WERE RIGHT!), yet NHL still didn't allow that sale to proceed. They marketted my property for 29,950 as advised by their EA's valuation given that it was a repossession. They eventually sold it for 27,500. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that they quite obviously blundered??? I'm no legal expert but why the hell should I offer them anything at all? Am I safe to call their bluff and say GO AHEAD... MAKE MY DAY... SUE ME?

-- Heather Broadhurst (, November 16, 2002


I wouldn't say that kind of fighting talk just yet. As they do have legal rights to do so. I would write a letter stating that your are making an enquiry into your account, due to the question of the shortfall you have. You would like the co-operation of the company concerned and how far you will go etc (Chairman and FOS Ombudsmen etc). Also put them On Notice for the any possible claim you may make on their malpractice (but I would write and inform them of this later in case if they become funny with yourself first). Drag it out legitimatly, that's not what they want. Then when all fails (as the case officier will try to force the issue) write to the chairman and state the malpractice you have experienced and, due to this malpractice, you would expect them to settle the shortfall to 1 as a nominal offer(this is called consideration in law).

Hey presto you've won. Life is so perfect, I thank you!

(Remember it is not as easy as all that! But I have managed to sort one case out for a friend on that proviso).

See my advice and take from it what you will

Best Wishes


-- Geoff Winters (, November 17, 2002.


Please write to your MP about this matter, particularly the underselling, which you can definitely prove.

The lenders sold properties at a price less than market value for quick sales, this is common knowledge anyway, but you have proof of the issue. This caused private vendors to have to reduce their prices too, particularly in areas where lots of repossessions took place, but it still affected the whole country through knock-on effect. Why would anybody buy a property at the top of their budget price when they could buy a repossession for 5 or more grand less? The whole market was affected and private sellers had to reduce their selling prices to stand any chance of selling, thus bringing down market values. The lenders then reduced their repossession prices further - adding further to negative equity. We paid 55K for our flat in 1990, within two months of moving in the price had dropped by 1K. By 1995 we could buy a 3 bed house for 60K in the same area, and couldn't sell our 1 bed flat because their was no demand for small properties.

Lenders caused/added to negative equity through underselling repossessions and in my view, should be made to account for their actions.


-- One Angry Mother (, November 18, 2002.

Just wanted to say thanks to these two replies.

Tracey, I have written to my MP today so hopefully he might offer some assistance. Thanks for that.

Geoff - Please god, if ONLY it was that simple (but I'm still going to try the 1 offer later on!)

Thanks for that.. it made me smile for the first time in months! regards Heather

-- Heather Broadhurst (, November 20, 2002.


Regarding the letters/explanations for the slow response from your lender about your original private sale.

I received my SARN response from my lender on Friday, I'm still ploughing through it - 354 pages, most of which are duplicates or pages of no information value, added to pad it out and take longer to read. Anyway, long story cut short. I have a piece of paper that states and I quote : "I have separated those documents we consider should not be released to Miss ..." Me!

I don't know if your lender works the same way, but I got a letter from the Data Controller (or whatever they are called) at the lender, saying that if I thought *SPECIFIC* paperwork that had not been included was relevant, I should write and request it, then they would view the situation. You could try this course of action regarding your missing letters, mind you, you may find they don't send the paperwork because you cannot supply *SPECIFIC* details of what is missing. If you don't get any joy you can then involve the Independent Controller (who oversees all Data Protection Act information, you can get details from web by typing Data Protection Act into search engine).

My colleague bought a repo back in 1998, for 80K less than the house was mortgaged for (this was at the lenders asking price). He said this caused terrible delays in the process because the lender was reluctant to let him buy it for the price they were asking for. I don't doubt the delay was caused by them making sure they got their money back by hook or by crook, probably through an insurance policy they bought once they knew what the shortfall would be.

Anyway, even if your MP is not interested in the issue of shortfall debt recovery, copy him on all correspondence sent and received. At least then the government can see what is really going on with these big financial organisations and how they go about re-couping their 'loses', and they will have to do something about it eventually. You could also write to the FSA, which is an independent body that is supposed to regulate banking.

Good luck me dear.


-- One Angry Mother (, November 20, 2002.

I just had to add to everyone that has problems with mortgages dated pre 1993, such as mine. A lot of advice is given about contacting ombudsmens, FSA and other regulatory bodies. However, in my case I have been unable to claim redress through ANYONE(!) I shall try and explain this....

Financial Ombudsmen - Only investigate problems from firms regulated by them ofwhich Paragon is not one;

Finance & Leasing Association (now regulate Paragon Finance) - Do not investigate purchase money mortgages below 50000;

Mortgage Code Compliance Board - Were not established at time of problem;

Council of Mortgage Lenders - do not investigate mortgage complaints;

Trading Standards - complaint is not in their remit;

C.A.B. - advised me to contact all of the above!

As you can see, no-one wants to know. It gets worse!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!

-- Heather (, November 28, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ