Voluntary repossessed TEN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I gave back the keys to my first property when interest rates peaked in 1990.My solicitor who helped me buy the house advised me to do so .I later found out that this solicitor was actually not a solicitor at all he was a fraud posing as a solicitor under an assumed name.I later learned He was being pursued by croydon detectives having dissapeared with #250000 of clients money.Years later the threatening mail started to arrive I took yet more legal advice & was told to ignore it.finally they took me to court without any consultation & the court ordered me to pay #200 per mth.Icould not afford this so I now pay #50 / mth.They say i owe them #40000 how they reached this figure i'll never know.the mortgage was # 84000 they sold the property for #67000 with a shortfall of #17000 I have a ccj for #40000 where do I go from here? Has anyone else settled with the bradford & bingley? How much will they want to settle? As he was not actually a solicitor did i actually own the house?
-- Paul milton (email@example.com), March 23, 2000
This a very interesting case as ,when you purchased the house ,we ask the Question did the Mortage Company have the same Solicitor.
The second Question is have to you fully checked to see if he was a solicitor ie via the Law Society
The Third part refers to Going to court without Legal Advice did you see a Solicitor then?
If you are claiming Fraud then that sets aside everything but has to be proved first. Lord Denning stated, once Fraud proven undoes everything but has to be proven.
Misrepresention or inducement again has to be proved.
What i am trying to get at in plain English all above are actions that can be taken but have to be proven
Like eg if the Lender and Yourself used the same Lawyer or he was on there Panel ,you need to find out
Nearly all Lenders ask that the Mortgage Deed is signed infront of a solicitor or nowadays many will accept Legal Excs
My the maxim if he was not a solicitor the deed is void and to repossess you must have a valid deed or charge,the charge would be void as the deed would be false
When you went to see i presume another lawyer re your last case ,presuming he was a lawyer ,they should have put forward a defence if the evidence was there and if they did take you on as a client ,then they themselves could be claimed against,
or did you go as litigant in person?
Did you at anytime before the last court hearing put any defence in regarding all this
for one who is silent will not get justice
Did you inform the bank re this evidence you had?
It looks from reading your email that the case went ahead judgement fot the plaintiff and then attachment of earning -which is as many think wrong without a hearing in many cases and the attactment of earnings clerk or the judge set the figure from the figures supplied to a standard rate basis
then then you have to appeal and show the amount you can afford ,which i presume in your case you did and hence the #50 no doubt by suspended order ie you pay the lender yourself not by attachment from your earnings
The above are some of the Questions you need to look further into then go and see another lawyer
wish you well in your case
-- charles twford (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 24, 2000.