CML Code : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread


Having been in contact with the BS about an alleged debt from 1993 I have queried why they are not following the CML's 6 year code and now chasing us. I can confirm they never wrote to us where we lived or to any friends/family. They have replied saying it was their belief they did attempt to make contact. After serving a SARN I have received evidence of one letter sent in 1999 to an address which I lived at previously but no longer lived at. I know it's a bit vague but would one letter in 6 years sent to a wrong address constitute attempting to make contact. If indeed they were not following the CML's code who could I complain to.

Thanks for your help


-- Julie (, December 12, 2003



I would take a look at the following 2 CML web pages:

Debt Following Mortgage Possession cml/cml/live/en/cml/pub_info_dept

Handling of Arrears and Possessions - See item 22 (Loss Recovery Procedures) cml/cml/live/en/cml/pub_info_arrears

A solicitor I know says he always insists on evidence of a recorded delivery letter having been sent in respect to a lender making contact. Otherwise any lender could say they made contact or had sent a letter.

You might be able to complain to The Mortgage Code Compliance Board on 01785 218200, but first I believe you have to exhaust the lender's own complaints procedure. Hope this is of some use. Good Luck.


-- M Amos (, December 17, 2003.

Sorry to contradict - it is the lenders decission and if your sarn evidences even one debt letter for the shortfall, irrespective of who sent it, then the cml policy undertaking is not relevant.

Quite simply I have never heard of one single person who has received confirmation from a lender or their representatives that no further action will be taken due to the CML's policy. Its a load of bullshit to sweeten polititians and thus slow down legal reform of our limitation laws.

The law says lenders have 12 years since the last cause of action for monies secured on property with a deed. CML policy does not stand up in defence if the lender chooses to take you to court.i.e. if the lender believes it is worth taking you to court.

The CML will not intervene, unless there is blatent abuse and you have evidence in your possession.

In your case the CML would simply reply that their member sent you a letter in 1999 and therefore the lender attempted to pursue you for the shortfall within 6 years of the date of your property being sold.

As for solicitors requsting evidence of recorded delivery for a letter which is after all a non legally binding agreement (CML policy) - in replying to a solicitor who challenges them regarding recorded delivery - the lender could reply that this is not a requirement and whilst there is no evidence of recorded delivery there is also no evidence on file to suggest that the borrower never received the letter! i.e 'gone away' - sly I know but when was a lender anything but.

Posted to the last known address is enough for judges.

For information the only item needing to be sent recorded delivery is the statutory notice (notification of the sale of your repossessed property) as per the building societies act (but this is only for Building Societies and not BANKS!).


-- I dont want to say (, December 17, 2003.

My understanding is that the 12 year rule comes into effect provided that its worded as such in the mortgage deed. There are many who have successfully argued in favour of 6 years.

I am not sure if one letter in 1999 constitutes sufficient contact. If they sent a letter (recorded delivery or not) and they heard nothing from you, then why did they not chase up the letter with another? Why did they make no attempt to find you?

I suggest that you follow the advice on this site and question the building society on the debt. If the debt was in 1993 then you're coming up to the 12 year end. As far as I know if they haven't started proceedings against you within the 12 years, then that is it. Unless anyone else knows otherwise??

-- pendle (, December 26, 2003.

To the above contributor I would ask what specific wording you refer to in reference to the deed as I cannot find any reference to such needs in the most defining case on this issue - Bartlett v Bristol & West

Every mortgage deed i have seen more or less contains the same wording - some have the conditions within whilst some make reference to them seperately but all say you agree to pay money secured on the property?

As the CA defined a deed as a speciality agreement how / when would section 20 of the limitation act not apply?

-- I dont want to say (, December 27, 2003.

Also has the many people who have sucessfully argued 6 years instead of 12 - have these being recent successes or before the CA vedict

-- I dont want to say (, December 27, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ