I have asked the solicitors several times now for details of marketing - all they say is they put the property on market at date X and it was sold on date Y. We were not repossessed until way after date X. There standard reply (even verbally) is: "We would like to point out that it would be remiss of our client not to acheive the best possible price on the security property given the prevailing market conditions at the time and can confirm our client discharged their statutory obligations regarding the sale of the property. It is, after all, common sense to realise the optimum price available, as our client is a mutual organisation, therefore any write-off is ultamately bourne by its members."

They also say my mortage was not subject to MIG.

When I mentioned the estate agents 6% they promptly waived it as good will - still quoting 50% of the shortfall. I imagine if I was to pay this 50% they would sting my partner for the other 50% (joint mortgage)

Any ideas how to get the marketing info, or indeed any info about the real worth of the property at that time?

Thanks for all your help

-- Rob Dodd (robdodd2@dialstart.net), October 06, 2000

Answers

Do read the Do's and Don'ts section, specifically the material on not directly challenging any of the figures and how to deal with uncooperative lenders.

What it boils down to is that you should restrict your letters to asking for proof, not to pointing out mistakes. Why? Because you want your lender to issue a writ against you based on as flawed a case as possible.

You need to contact two local estate agents and possibly pay them a consulting fee to give you two separate retrospective valuations.

We are testing a process where repossessees obtain information by becomind a shareholder in the company concerned and then demanding the documentation under their shareholder rights.

I will report results as they come in.

Lee

-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), October 06, 2000.

Hi Rob,

First of all it helps if you name your lender as one of the purposes of this site is to highlight which lenders are not playing fair.

Anyway one would think that solicitors of all people would be aware of what is required under law (especially with the new Civil Procedure Rules now in force). You are entitled to full details that prove not only that the property was marketed correctly but that it was marketed in the same way that the Estate Agents market the other property that they handle (Skipton Building Society -v Stott). The lender must also supply proof that they ensured this took place, NOT merely that they have taken the Estate Agents assurances of this.

The fact that they've got the dates muddled indicates a lack of care. In fact this whole statement by the solicitors only confirms my belief that they must think we're stupid! I've had similar waffle from my lender, the Halifax.

Under the new CPR, full disclosure of all actions pertinent to the sale of the property must be carried out. Judges now will not tolerate non-disclosure that puts one party at a disadvantage. Sounds like justice in action doesn't it.

So lets break the statement down to check it:

"We would like to point out that it would be remiss of our client not to achieve the best possible price on the security property.."

Yes indeed it would be, so what's the problem in supplying proof that the lender was not remiss in this sale? Indeed what could there possibly be to hide if this is true?

"given the prevailing market conditions at the time..."

What were the prevailing market conditions at the time and what was the source of this information?

"our client discharged their statutory obligations regarding the sale of the property."

The lender will still need to supply proof that they did indeed discharge their statutory duties. In addition they should be aware that they will likely to be required to show that they should also have taken note of case law in this matter (They'll be well aware of all cases that are pertinent)

"It is, after all, common sense to realise the optimum price available"

Common sense? Considering that any loss will be footed by you and that time and time again lenders show little care when it comes to "offloading" repossessed properties, the lasting impression of their antics is not one of common sense.

"...as our client is a mutual organisation, therefore any write-off is ultimately bourne by its members."

When has any Mutual, or PLC for that matter, cared so much for so many? It's a spit in the ocean compared to their profits (and assets). There wouldn't be any shortfall anyway if lenders took greater care to sell the property correctly.

I'm amazed that Lenders become so desperate to justify their lack of care that they'll convince themselves they're right by spouting waffle and pursue a course of action regardless. One only has to look at how they risk their company's image (and share price) by displaying a scant disregard of justice in the face of media publicity.

They probably waived the Estate Agents 6% because, to be honest it's just extortionate. Also consider this, If they were ever to confirm that the property was in fact marketed by the Estate Agents in the same way that they market other property then the reason for a higher fee would be brought into question. In addition the question of whether in fact a "Sole Agency" reduction should have been applied would also come into play.

I would advise that in my opinion until the alleged debt is fully accounted for, then it remains just that, an alleged debt and as such cannot be negotiated upon.

Stick to your guns, Keep informing them of what was/is required of them and ask them to supply documented proof.

Regarding the real worth of the property at that time, visit the Land Registry web site at: http://www.landreg.gov.uk/ where you should be able to obtain the average prices for property in the area for the relevant period. You should only need to obtain a retrospective valuation if it ever goes to court.

Don't worry, the information MUST be provided by them but they'll make sure you have to fight for it. It would be useful if you kept strict notes about how this process detrimentally affects you both mentally and physically, for future reference.

You're not alone in this as I'm sure you'll have noticed from articles in the press and even on the TV news this morning. I myself have suffered with "waffle" from the Halifax PLC. They gave the reason for not including "Cul-De-Sac" as a positive selling point in the sales particulars as... wait for it........"Not everybody would want to live in a Cul-De-Sac". Well just to prove it wrong I surveyed a number of Estate Agents. All agreed it should always be included, one wrote that 9 out of 10 homebuyers would prefer to live in one. Halifax Property Services went further and stated that the only reason to exclude it would be if there was a superstore at the bottom of the Cul-De-Sac! Strange diversity in corporate strategy isn't it?

Anyway you should soon be able to read on this site all about my case. Maybe even watch it on the BBC's "Watchdog" now I've contacted them!

Well I hope I've helped but the rest is up to you. You MUST read this site from top to bottom - the information within is tremendous.

I wish you all success.

Regards,

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 06, 2000.

For your information this is Nationwide, using Eversheds.

Thank you all for your help. I have been quite ill lately and your help is a relief.

Regards

Rob

-- rob dodd (robdodd2@dialstart.net), October 07, 2000.

Refer Nationwide & Eversheds to the article in the Sunday Times 'Money' section, dated 08/03/98, in which Nationwide refunded a borrower over #25,000 for excessive charges. This article was a follow up to a previous article that I instigated on the Bradford & Bingley on 22/06/97 regarding deliberately concealed charges. All Bradford & Bingley customers please note.

Put Eversheds & Nationwide to "strict proof" of any alleged debt, and any alleged debt is "Not admitted" (legal jargon).

-- Vic Harper (victorcharper@aol.com), October 08, 2000.