Class Action : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I am currently in discussions with a lawyer over a potential class action against Abbey National, I have been advised that the failing point for most class actions is getting enough people together. This is where this excellent site may help out. If we can get enough names of people that have been abused by AN then the class action can proceed. The numbers will obviously have a significant bearing on the cost, and once I have details of the number of people willing to participate any of us should be able to present our case to any Lawyer and get a fixed cost.

This will help all people on this site as AN seem to be one of the worst purpertrators (spellling???) of this disgusting way of treating people. If you are thinking of settling with Abbey or their servants, think again, for a fraction of the cost we could show them up and get this nonsense stopped.

If anyone has any comments or advice on this it would be greatly appreciated. We must NOT give in to these animals.

-- Not Likely (, September 04, 2001


I have a number of issues concerning Abbey myself.

But, for a “Class Action” complaint to succeed surely you would require a group of people with the same complaint?

Do you think we could get a group together with the same complaint?

-- Michael Johnson (, September 05, 2001.

In response to Michael, I think we all share at least one of if not all of the complaints regarding Abbey National, namely, mis-sold MIG, underselling of repossessed property, waiting years to even let us know there is a problem etc etc... Even just the way they consistently refuse to justify their claims could be enough.

-- Not Likely (, September 06, 2001.

I totally agree. How many other people were contacted in the month prior to the CML shortfall agreement? I think an old database of records that was urgently mailshot by AN before the " agreed" 6 year deadline, without a full consideration for the content of those records. I understand that Halifax had indicated this would be their approach in Dec 1999 ( although I do not know if anyone has benefited from their response) and I wholly believe this was an immediate kneejerk response by AN to claim outstanding debts, disregarding the legal status of those debts. If that isn't an underhand way of treating people...threatening people where a debt is even legally applicable anymore!! My property was sold in Jan 1993 at 40% of its market value obtained in a private sale where unfortunately the buyer withdrew,3 months prior to the repossession. There was no MIG, just a simple mortgage, but AN will not admit their policy on the 6 year rule for simple debt being from the first breach of contract i.e.the first missed mortgage payment mortgage or from the date of the sale of the property. In my case both should be statute barred, but AN's solicitors still act illegally. I am currently awaiting their answers to specific questions and will advise you. My thanks to the excellent UKHRpages, your advice has allowed me to tackle this nonsense. I certainly

-- (, September 06, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ