Here is a poser, voluntary repossession with the N&P building society in 94. Abbey are now after blood. We keep asking for details of the MIG, but same answer comes back "The MIG is a contract between our client and the insurer. We do not have the insurers authority to release details to a third party" Surely the Abbey is a third party as the original contract was with N&P? Also they have sent us some invoices for solicitors,valuations etc from the time of sale with the respective firms names and addresses blanked out with the same excuse about us being the third party.Again surely the Abbey are the third party as the original documents were addressed to the N&P. Does anybody have any theories about this?

-- Keith Norton (RNorton398@aol.com), September 16, 2001

Answers

Sorry mate, but they are a not third-party in the legal sense. They took over the business of the N&P so your contract, as such, transfers to them.

Viz blanking out the names etc. Its up to them to prove they acted in accordance with the BS act of whenever that specifies they have to market and sell the property properly. If you have any queries on any of the documents that relate to N&P's effectiveness in marketing, selling or (another key one) administrating your property whilst in was in their possession then you are entitled to make those queries and to expect Abbey (as successors to N&P) to answer them truthfully and in a timely fashion. Those queries will necessarily relate to the third parties involved, and therefore were things to go to court you could pull up those documents one by one, make your queries and insist that the Abbey revealed the identities of the firms in question so you could verify their statements.

Finally, back to the world-of-MIG. Unless the contract itself indicates confidentiality as a clause, N&P/Abbey are a party to it and as such entitled to make it public with or without the consent of the other side. They are naturally choosing not to. However, my view (and I'm not a professional) is that if somebody is suing you - and effectively the MIG people are because they have subrogating their rights to the Abbey - they you should be entitled to know who, for how much, and on what basis. Again, I believe the document would have to be presented in a court of law, otherwise you could simply argue that the MIG had paid out most of Abbeys claim, so who wanted the money... at that point the MIG has got to be brought into play.

Obviously, you've had some good advice up to now and you seem to know ehre you are at. My advice is to keep plugging away.

Good luck

-- (bluemoon@grabbynational.co.uk), September 17, 2001.