Update to previous question of same title:

We now have concrete evidence that all endowement policies assigned to Abbey National in connection with our reposession, were surrendered by Abbey, but they still deny receiving the proceeds of any of these policies.

Because of other information that we have in our posession we know that none of the proceeds were used to reduce our alledged liability for the shortfall.

We have told DLA that we have the evidence, and they have requested copies which we are not going to send at this time, make the beggers sweat!

We have also found out that a surrender cheque for one particular endowement policy was sent to Abbey made payable to myself and my wife.

Does anyone out there know anything about banking procedures i.e. how could Abbey possibly cash this cheque when it is not made payable to them. Also, if they couldn't bank it, would it be considered theft if the cheque was not passed on to us.

ps Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read this message.

-- (spooley@madasafish.com), June 24, 2000

Answers

Yes, I certainly don't think you should be sending DLA any information you have until they have sent you a full, documented (ie verifiable) account of what the Abbey National did. that way *you* can put the information you have into its place. That is much more desirable than have the DLA/Abbey National do it for you, without giving you the chance to verify it.

Was your source for the information about the endowment repayment able to tell you if Abbey actually cashed the cheques? It may be that Abbey was unable to cash at least one of them because it was in your name.

Is your source able to witness for you in court or to supply written confirmation that you can put in front of a judge if it becomes necessary? Obviously, you need this if the worst comes to the worst (but it usually doesn't if they don't know quite what it is they are up against).

Finally, well done for digging. You're using your rights.

Lee

-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), June 24, 2000.

Lee is correct-hold back on your evidence-what may seem a clear cut case can be changed in court-Like assigned policies get full proof first and do not disclose it yet Alleged cashing of your Cheque sounds ok but again be sure of your facts There are things in court like Slip Rules(errors made by the court but rectified)although in this case we are not saying its the courts fault Cases on Repossession have gone to court, were on appeal to the Circuit Judge. Judge has agreed there are false figures,but due in this case it was Duff Solicitor-in act TWO they must be sued and the lenders case was upheld against the Borrower without leave to Appeal! So figures were known to be false-the solicitors involved, both caused this and also one made complete mess of the hearing ,but still the lender got the Benefit they also knew the figures were false! With this type of practice going on like Lee stated hold back on your evidence.

Charles Twford

-- charles twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), June 24, 2000.