Banking Ombudsman's report of a case regarding delay : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I have discovered this case within the Banking Ombudsman's Report for 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999 which I think may not have been publicised:.

------------------------------------------------------------Unreasonable delay in enforcing security:

In 1986, after Mrs R received appropriate legal advice, Mr and Mrs R charged a house to the bank - to secure Mr Rs borrowing. Later, the bank called in Mr Rs loan. By 1988 Mr R owed #3,700. The bank obtained a court order for possession of the property but did not enforce it. Mrs R assumed the debt had been settled, and heard nothing more from the bank until she contacted it in 1995 when Mr and Mrs R had separated. The bank told her that interest had substantially increased the debt, which she would have to pay if she wanted the charge on the house lifted. At one stage it said the amount payable was #21,700. Eventually it told her it was actually #12,200. If the bank had told Mrs R the position in 1988, she could have paid the #3,700 owing then. Because Mrs R had been misled by the banks inactivity and about the amount, we required the bank to substantially reduce the interest rate and also deduct #1,500 for inconvenience.


I hope that this may be of some help to Mortgage Shortfall Victims.

-- Tony Hayter (, October 02, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ