MIG claim in progress

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I am currently being pursued by an agent of Royal and SunAlliance, Experto Credito.

I used Home Repro site signficantly when I was chased by my lender and was very pleased at the outcome 28k down to 1300.

However now the dreaded MIG has come up. Now at the nasty letter stage ie someone will visit you then we take you to court etc so have replied to that. However, wondered if anyone had words of wisdom they might like to share re fighting MIGS.

FYI, property sold in 1997 so no point arguing about 6 or 12 years etc. Looked across Home Repro site and whilst some pages helpful with MIG nothing that spefic in the way it helps fight a lender, is that because it ain't so easy!

-- John Orson (orson_john@yahoo.co.uk), January 09, 2003



Firstly tell us who the Lender was and also the name of the company chasing you.

Who did you pay the 1300 to and did you state it was in full and final settlement to all parties involved?

Did you SARN everyone?

Was the lender settled by the MIG in full (ie: 28,000)?

Let me know and I'll TRY and help!


-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), January 10, 2003.

Experto Credito.....is this real???


-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), January 10, 2003.

LTSB was the lender as I mentioned it is an agent of Royal and SunAlliance, Experto Credito who are doing the chasing, and yes it is there real name!

Payment to LTSB and it was in full and final settlement but with the exception of the MIG. Of course and it is on the home repro site that the lender has a duty to claim on the MIG to reduce the amouunt I owe them!!

I SARN LTSB but not to Royal & SunAlliance or Experto , I am holding off on that at the moment.

>>Was the lender settled by the MIG in full (ie: 28,000)? << No and this is the really interesting thing and for I a making a point on this. The full claim was just under 34k but the MIG paid out 6k. It was a small amount because when I took the mortgage out they wanted 800+ for the MIG. When I asked what it was for we got round to the fact I could just have it for to cover amount over 75%, therefore the MIG only paid out 25% of the indemtity. Whats important about this is the discussion I had with the bank at the time, this was to cover me not the bank and therefore to keep the cost down I took the minimum option, at the time negative equatity was not something people really knew about (how times have changed). But think about this why would the bank wish to increase the risk by offering me a option that did not cover them as well as it should do, thats why I recall it so well.

Well thats a bit more info but after reading up a bit and reflecting MIGs do need to be covered a bit more as on the home repo site it pushes people to get the lender to claim off the MIG, had I been able to settle the whole amount with LTSB I reckon I would be better of overall. That said I am very happy with the advice I got from Home Repo so don't get me wrong!

Again thoughts on this and MIGs in general appreciated.

-- John Orson (orson_john@yahoo.co.uk), January 12, 2003.


I don't know whether you saw my earlier posting 'on the MIG question' and the info from Simon of 'debtquestions.co.uk'. His info begs a number of questions which I shall be asking him shortly, I'll post it up under the same thread when I can.


-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), January 13, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ