Is this true about the Halifax?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I found this as an update to an article all about someone being chased for a shortfall on www.ctoc.co.uk
Is it true and if so, under the subrogation laws, how does it effect those of use chased by insurance companies whose mortgages were with the halifax?
'The Halifax Building Society announced that as of 5pm, Tuesday 14th December 1999, all mortgage debts older than six (6) years will not be pursued.'
Also, is the web site I quoted trustable (if there is such a word)? it looks quite good and has slightly differing perspectives on the situation - not link to home-repo.org though.
Yours thoughts greatfully received.
-- Matt (email@example.com), November 23, 2000
Visited the web site - some good points on there. I also note that the Nationwide also said they would not pursue debts older than 6 years (Dec 99)so congrats anyone with the Halifax or Nationwide repossessed before 1995. I'd like to see all the other lenders following their lead.
-- Sue Gates (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 23, 2000.
This statement only applies to people who have not been contacted yet. If you have already received some form of contact from the lender, before the date on the staement, then I am afraid they still claim 12year limitation rights. Sorry.
-- jacky jones (email@example.com), November 23, 2000.
In my belief the whole issue of the Halifax, or other lenders, waiting any lengthy period of time until it suits them to take someone to court is now extremely questionable.
The Woolf reforms now encourage a "level playing field" approach to litigation. Therefore a period of intentional delay in pre-action which is only of benefit to one party may not be interpreted as contributing to a "level" condition. A judge may well question why a defendant, having received a letter from a claimant promising Court Proceedings within a matter of days or weeks, is only actually being taken to court years later. Claimants will need to be able to prove that they have complied fully with any Pre-Action protocol.
In my view The Human Rights Act may well also bring into question the delaying tactics of lenders. The "reasonable time" factor could possibly also limit this practice.
-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), November 23, 2000.
Tony makes many interesting and surely valid points here. The 'six year rule' is only a voluntary code and so the lenders can pretty much tailor it to suit themselves. It didn't take effect till February 11th 2000, and it excluded everyone who had already been 'contacted' - this included anyone to whom a letter had been sent, even if it was to an old address! The six year period was deemed to have started at the point of sale, not at the point of repossession.
However, some legal opinion holds that the clock starts ticking at the time of first default leading to that repossession, and only ends with court proceedings. But this is untested in court, because Abbey bottle out of a Court of Appeal test case against the Holmans. (See elsewhere on this HRP site.)
The Limitation position is very complicated and probably by no means settled.
-- Eleanor Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 25, 2000.
At the moment, the Civil Procedure Rules only have pre-action protocols for clinical negligence, defamation, construction/engineering disputes and personal injury. However the Practice Direction for these protocols does have a section called “pre action behaviour in other cases” which says….
“..that the court will expect the parties, in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and (c), to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.”
CPR 1.1(2)(a),(b),(c) says that the Rules have the overall objective of enabling the Courts to deal with a case justly, and that includes:
“ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
a. saving expense; b. dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate - i. to the amount of money involved; ii. to the importance of the case; iii. to the complexity of the issues; and iv. to the financial position of each party;
c. ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;….”
I think that we can all agree that in most cases, the lenders are not acting reasonably in exchanging information.
If anyone was writing to their lender and quoted the above, I think it might help. Even if the lender/solicitor still didn’t co-operate, it shows at least that we’ve done our homework – we know our rights, we’re aware of the rules, and that we’re not going to be walked over.
As to the question of limitation. I found a barrister in London who is willing to give me an opinion, however its got to be in writing and through a solicitor, which obviously is going to cost me money, but I certainly think it will be worth it.
-- pendle (email@example.com), November 25, 2000.