wuick update on the situation, filed defence and counterclaim. just recieved a letter from solicitor with statement of account which is full of entries saying "misc fee" and "repo cost". So going to ask to see what these actually were, they amount to at least 3-4000 pounds. They have confirmed that a MIG payout was made which is interesting as it is substantially lower than the amount being claimed, they claim £8000 but are demanding in excess of 30k plus interest? Where did 22K+ debt come from?

Interrstingly its the first letter Ive had but they are already saying settlement may be possible for a vastly reduced sum.....

The defence and a separate letter asking for other stuff crossed in the post so I will wait to see a further response before I reply.

Steve

-- Steve (cantnotsay@co.com), May 16, 2003

Answers

forgot one other thing, I threw in the CML 6 year rule too. Response was lender had tried to contact me prior to the 6 years, in this case I am going to ask for strict proof they tried and ask if the letters were recorded delivery etc.....and if not how can they be sure they made contact at all. This isnt my defence but want to dig into this a bit further to see what happens.

-- steve (cannotsay@co.com), May 16, 2003.

Steve,

Don't forget that when a lender obtains a MIG it may not necessarily cover any amount a shortfall happens to be. In your case, I would suppose, the maximum the lender could claim under the insurance policy was 8K. I think it's a positive sign from the lender that they say you may be able to settle for a vastly reduced sum.

I think you're quite right to ask for proof that they tried to contact you. Any lender can say 'well we rang you various on various occasions' or 'we wrote to you'. The real proof, as you say, is a recorded delivery letter. I think it's a point more people could possibly argue. The CML say:

"Following the sale of a property in possession, lenders often find it difficult to contact the former borrower to advise them of any surplus monies or shortfall debt. Lenders use a variety of measures to identify where the individual is now living. This might include using tracing agents. Situations can arise where a lender or its third party agent is trying to contact the individual (for example, by letter or telephone) to discuss repayment of the shortfall, but the individual simply chooses to ignore such contact. This is despite the fact that the contact is being made at the individual's new address. In these cases, lenders will consider that contact has been made for the purposes of the new six year limit. If an individual is unclear whether contact has been made within the six year period, the lender will be able to confirm the position."

If a lender only has to say they contacted you and not have to produce a recorded delivery letter, for example, to proove it, then I believe this CML 6 year voluntary code is virtually WORTHLESS. In my opinion this CML agreement only came about due to pressure from the Government, media and organisations such as the CAB. What can we do to stop all this bad publicity they thought? Ah yes! Create a 6 year voluntary code which hardly helps anyone but sounds great and shuts everybody up. Or am I being too cynical? Any more comments?

Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

Mark, thanks for the comments. I agree about the MIG amount not necessarily being the amount of shortfall thats why I have asked for a copy of the MIG. We will see If I manage to get it, if they wont pass it over I will ask for strict proof thru the courts if not forthcoming.

will keep you posted.

-- Steve (cannotsay@co.com), May 16, 2003.

The SARN may show whether they did or did not attempt to make contact within the time limits. Ours was filled with copies of letters sent to a previous address after we left there.

Also showed our MIG as only covering 8k of the mortgage.

Sue

-- Sue (bradfordandbingley_suck@yahoo.co.uk), May 16, 2003.

Re contact letters. Easy though for someone to write a letter, backdate it and then photocopy it, but then I've just got a suspicious mind.

Mark

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.