Hi all,

Does anyone out there know a case were the court had stated that the cml code does not apply due to the fact that it is not legally binding.

Urgent response would be appreciated as would web pages or court number/reference.

regards

Jie.

-- jie (jiexu@btinternet.com), February 21, 2005

Answers

Not heard of anything like that in all my years in Sub prime mortgage arrears, The courts are very sympathetic to and uphold the CML code in all instances I have been involved.

Are your referring to a particular situation where this has happened?

-- Lee Wisener (Lee@wisener.net), February 22, 2005.

Hello,

This doesn't answer your question specifically but does give some insight into how one District Judge at least views the CML's Mortgage Code.

I accompanied a constituent [I became a local councillor in May 2002] to a possession hearing recently. Before the lender's solicitor had fully unpacked his briefcase, the DJ pointed out to him that "your client is a member of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and should know better, blah blah". This was because the lender had failed to acknowledge an arrears payment offer from the defendant.

The DJ ordered the Claim for Possession to be adjourned.

I then asked the DJ whether my constituent should pay the costs of the hearing (based on his comments that in the context of the CML's Mortgage Code, the hearing was unneccesary). The DJ made the following order. "No costs are to be added to the security without leave of the Court."

The DJ's mind set cannot be unusual. If litigants are paid-up members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and deviate from the Mortgage Code (whether intentionally or unintentionally), then it would appear that there may well be consequences in court hearings, including the issue of costs.

I would love to hear about any other related experiences or learn from relevant information.

And a real lesson to be learnt in arrears/repo hearing cases is: file a defence and make an arrears repayment offer, no matter how small; turn up for the hearing; and ask whether you have to pay the costs the hearing, if the lender hasn't listened to you.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), February 28, 2005.