Response to MJO's, MIG's, Proof of LIability and some thoughts

I agree - but I think based on reading stories on this site and my own experience that "changing the nature" of the debt is precisely what the Lender's try to do on the quiet. You are spot on when you mention intimidation Eleanor. They do intimidate - letters demanding extortionate sums after years of silence can all but shatter your confidence and bully people into admitting to and agreeing to repayments that are not only unreasonable but legally questionable in my view. How many of the Lenders would acknowledge that the portion recovered under a MIG payout would be out of time after six years? Out of interest, has anyone had a letter adjusting the shortfall amount for the MIG payout after six years has expired? Another thought (I am thinking and typing at the same time so forgive the erratic post!) but if, hypothetically speaking, someone were to have a letter which acknowledged that payout under a MIG had been made but that any future payments recovered by either the Lender or the Insurer would be apportioned between them [Lender & Insurer] as and when received...surely the alleged shortfall balance after the MIG payout has to be "simple" and covered by the six year rule? Otherwise how would any party be able to determine what proportion of a recovered payment related to the mortgage element and what proportion to the MIG? For example, take those people conned into making 50 quid a month payments forever. How much of the fifty quid is the Insurers (MIG applicable - 6 years and debt simple) and how much the Lender's (specialty and 12 years? Since the Lender is always quoting Rights of Sub when they chase you, the alleged shortfall has to be recovery under the part of the legislation which covers a debt simple at that point. Would the Lender then say after six years..well keep coughing up the fifty quid as the rest of the shortfall has switched back and now falls under specialty again because the Insurer is time barred? I cannot fathom how that would stand up legally. Or am I missing something? Any thoughts?

[ Previous | Next ]