Hi,

I've just read Pendle's excellent reply to Susan regarding the "Conditional Fee Agreement". I am definitely interested in the prospect of possibly being eligible for this on the basis of the facts of my case with the Halifax.

I have alleged that the Halifax have committed 25 separate acts of negligence in the Possession, Valuation, and Marketing of my property. I have documentary evidence of these alleged negligent actions which include:

# Ignoring a specific instruction from the judge at the possession hearing.

# Failure to send me statutory notification of the date of execution of warrant for possession

# The Halifax's own qualified surveyor correctly identified the property as a 4 Bed, 2 Reception, Semi Detached but in the valuation no comparables stated were 4 bedroom and most were well out of date.

# The Estate Agents' valuation being based on the property misdescribed as a 3 Bed, 2 Reception, End Terrace. Other blatant errors were also be found in this valuation.

# The property was marketed incorrectly as a 3 Bed, 3 Reception Semi, despite being identified correctly by the Halifax's own qualified surveyor as having a 4th bedroom.

# The property was marketed with no positive selling points in the sales particulars. The following could have been used "No Chain", "Vacant Possession", Cul-De-Sac", "Off-Road Parking","10 Minutes Walk To Main Line Station to Waterloo". The Halifax, after my repeated insistence finally agreed to include "No Chain" and a rail station reference only after an offer (Which resulted in sale) had been accepted. No positive selling points were ever used. In my view the replies from the Halifax as to why none had ever been used include half-truths and totally implausible reasons.

# My ex-wife had vacated the property ("Done a runner" is a better term) 6 months before the repossession and had left a considerable quantity of belongings and rubbish within the property. The Halifax had valued it all as being worth #50 (The Estate Agents had given it a value of #75,000 !). During the whole of the marketing phase these belongings and rubbish were stacked within the property and were only removed a week before the sale was completed. I have now received documentation confirming that the actual quantity of what can only be termed as an eyesore was 16 Cubic Yards!! This figure can only be appreciated when you consider that if it had been stacked in piles, each taking up 4 square feet of floor space with each having a height of 4 feet (So that any prospective purchaser could actually see over them), then there would be 25 piles of it distributed throughout the property ! This strange marketing ploy may be explained by the Halifax's surveyors recommendation that no clearance of debris was required and that the property was best sold in it's present condition at a reduced price. The Halifax have avoided addressing this issue, even within an internal investigation!

There are additional issues regarding my allegations of negligence that I believe have also have not been addressed by the Halifax correctly.

They have made an offer of reducing the shortfall by #386.18 for the delay incurred after the hearing as a result of ignoring the judges instruction. They have also offered #500 reduction for what they describe as "Procedural/Administrative Errors". I have informe the Halifax that I consider these offers insulting.

I have informed the Halifax that I deny liability for this allleged debt, will not negotiate upon it and that I'm willing to go to court over this, basically inviting them to commence proceedings. They have responded by repeatedly offering to place a 9 month period for suspension on debt recovery action on me after which THEY will review the situation. I have resisted this as I believe this is only in their interests to keep me quiet.

In the knowledge that solicitors and other professionals interested in repossession matters frequently view this site, would anyone like to give a considered opinion as to the merits of my case? I do realise of course that any opinion would only be based on my statements above. I would of course have to approach a solicitor in person to get a real life picture of my position with the full facts examined.

Regards,

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 08, 2000

Answers

Hi Tony!

I know of a very aggressive firm of solicitors who can help in your situation. Given the information on your case re the Halifax, I'm sure they would be delighted to take a look with a view to underwriting the cost of the action. Halifax clearly need sorting out in my view. I'll mail you the details privately. Go for them.

Good luck - Vic

-- Vic Harper (victorcharper@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

Thanks very much Vic and also thanks to everyone that has E-mailed me privately. I will keep everyone up to date on the progress of this.

Incidentally here's the latest event which only "adds insult to injury". The Halifax has now supplied further documentation. This reveals that they have charged me for all the to and fro letters that were involved in achieving the insulting offer they made to reduce the alleged debt. Their behaviour never ceases to amaze me!

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 11, 2000.