I handed the keys back in on my home in May 1992 resulting in a shortfall of some #33000.The lender,Abbey National,instructed Eversheds who contacted me in February last year.I argued the Hopkinson v Tupper case to which they replied Global Financial Recoveries v Jones.I have also requested on several occasions that they send me proof that the property was properly marketed along with full market valuations obtained as I believe that the flat was sold for a lot less than it was worth.Eversheds have completely ignored my request for this info, each time requesting I telephone them to discuss this matter and advising me that Abbey are willing to settle for #17000,an amount which I do not have.I have politely advised them that I am unable to telephone them to discuss the matter.I have not admitted liability for their claim but I am wondering what my next step should be now as we appear to have reached a "stalemate". Should I make them a "without prejudice" offer even though they haven't supplied me with valuations etc?Or should I now make a SAR request to Abbey? I'd be pleased to hear from anyone with any experience of dealing with Eversheds and would add that I am keen to see this matter ended as it has been dragging on for years.I would also add that I do now have another mortgage with another lender so would prefer the case not to go to court for fear of losing this property. Thanks in anticipation (Congrats on such an informative website)

-- joanne billington (joanneb30@hotmail.com), May 04, 2000

Answers

WE ALL TEND TO LOOK AT THE LEGAL (SOLICITOR SIDE IN ALL THESE CASES) ONE TENDS TO FORGET THAT IN MANY ,INDEED MOST OF THESE CASES INVOLVE FIGURES AND ACCOUNTANTS THEREFORE IS DOES NO HARM TO GET A QUALIFIED ACCOUNTANT TO WRITE TO THESE VARIOUS SOLICITORS AND DEMAND A BREAKDOWN

AFTER ALL TAX VAT ETC YOU DO NOT PAY WITHOUT TRUE FIGURES ETC SO WHY SHOULD THIS SUBJECT BE ANY DIFFERENT

THEN FROM THAT ACCOUNTANT REPORT YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT STEP

Charles Twford

-- charles twford (Chrales.Twford@lineone.net), May 04, 2000.

correction on email address

-- charles.twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), May 04, 2000.

We believe that we could be the Jones in your letter although we were taken to court by the Abbey.If so I would like you to know that we did not completely lose.They summonsed us for #42.000 in Sept 99 most of this was interest accrued after the sale in 92.The judge decided they were not entitled to claim this and awarded judgement to them for #27.000.This has now risen to #31.000!! we also quoted Hopkinson vs Tupper in our case, to no avail.We are still fighting.

-- Colin and Jacky Jones (jones.colin2@talk21.com), May 23, 2000.

The Jones in your letter is Kelvin Jones. To go back to the stuff raised at the start of the lead posting, this seems to be the score re. case law: Nat West v Kitch (1996) and Hopkinson v Tupper (1997) appeared to establish the six year rule for chasing mortgage shortfall debts applied. Then came Global Financial Resources v Jones in the High Court, in 1999, when the judgement held that the twelve year rule applied! However, in March 2000 Abbey backed down against the Holmans, and avoided court by even paying the Holmans court costs. It has been suggested (see elsewhere on this web site) that the Abbey did not want the have the Global Financial Resources decision (which was a bad one) overturned in the Appeal Court!! It is 'interesting', therefore, that Abbey argued GFR v Jones to you! Of course they didn't admit any liability in settling out of court with the Holmans, but we all know what they're afraid of.... all best. E.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), July 15, 2000.

The orginal question was a shortfall debt being chased by Eversheds and the person was asking had anyone else had experince of them The last answer by Eleanor Scott -correct me if im wrong but you stated you were being chased for a shortfall by them in a early question-we would be interested to know how you are getting on yourself with them , having read the website and given very good answers and research from it as we all like to know progress.

Charles twford

-- charles twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), July 15, 2000.

Just to follow up on Charles' last question in this thread initiated by Joanne - yes, I'm still being pursued for mortgage shortfall by Eversheds/Abbey, and they are seemingly not prepared to give me any documentation to suppport their claim. You all might like some quotes from a letter received today from one of Abbey's 'Settlement Officers': 'I can assure you that it is the usual course that all correspondence is answered without delay'; 'individual invoices are not generated'; and - the icing on the cake - 'it is not the intention of Abbey National to distress or impoverish ex borrowers when pursuing mortgage shortfall debt and Eversheds meet our requirements in this respect'. So that's all right then .... all best, Eleanor.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), July 26, 2000.

How proud we must be of our Justice System,the eyes of the world- anyone reading this from another Country-what would they think. Just look for example at the Criminal Justice System-there the Judge even directs the jury to find them innocent if no evidence is safe.

Yet we read this lot unsafe evidence-lack of disclosure but we forget one thing this is the Civil Justice System relies on the basis that lack of disclosure or that eventually,the defendant will not challenge the disclosures-so they win by default. This does happen in courts up and down the land.

This is nothing the Legal system can be proud of also we tend to forget that many can not get Legal Aid anymore so they are hit by The Big boy lawyers with plenty in the bank!

We and i repeat an *ACT* to sort this mess out-to see justice for all not just playing games with words re letters and hiding disclosures. Should this be a tax enquiry you would not be able to hide the facts so what is different. Yes ive gone for long time on this but like stated what a mess and what can we be proud of as a Nation!

Charles Twford

-- charles twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), July 26, 2000.

Just to continue this thread (why not?!), I do think Charles' desire for an Act or a clear statute is reasonable, because it is obvious that the banks cannot properly regulate themselves. They abuse the Morgtage Code (by which they supposedly regulate themselves voluntarily) on an astoundingly frequent basis. You can even look at the recent minutes of Treasury committee meetings on the House of Commons web site and see senior members of the Financial services Authority admit that the Mortgage Code is flouted all the time. (Lenders are meant to act 'fairly' and with 'transparency', in case you're interested.) Here's Howard Davies, Chairman of the all-powerful FSA: ' The issue, of course, is whether it [the Mortgage Code] is properly policed, and the evidence that the Council of Mortgage Lenders have themselves produced, to their credit [!], where they have done their own assessment of this, has been that it is pretty patchy still. So I do not think that we would have a lot of quarrel really with the code itself, I think the issue is whether people are actually following it, around the country.' (Giving evidence to Treasury Committee, 14 March 2000.) What concerns me is how mortgages (and repossessions and shortfalls) continue to evade scrutiny by a statutory mechanism. The banks are not fit to regulate themselves voluntarily. Eleanor.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), July 29, 2000.