Help-has my SARN caught them out!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

To recap - B&W claim I owe them 31K - here are my findings from SARN Monies owed when I handed keys back 65,689.07 - the 31K is interest of 10K (took them 2 years to sell as they kept rejecting better offers!), fees of 3K, loss on sale 21K less my endowment they cashed in of 3K. They could have sold the property for 7K more, two months after repossession but from the docs I received when I SARNed them, they turned this and subsequent higher offers down. Notes on the offers say things like the purchaser (at 52K) was renting property on same street and was ready to buy. Agents were obviously amazed that B&W turned him down as there are exclamation marks and advice to sell. On this same form where it has "Loss details/recovery action" it says: Current debt 66,279 indemnity 13,500 break even value 52,779

Based on this, their loss would have been a measly 779pounds but they still didn't accept!!! This brings me to the next point - when I took out the mortgage for 65,250 - B&W advanced 51,750 and a guarantee was given by Sun Alliance for the remaining 13,500. I paid a one-time fee of 607.50 for this. (My endowment was also with Sun Alliance (paid mthly) which I presume is something different??) I have asked B&W 3 times for copy of MIG but they keep refusing and there is nothing in SARN docs showing whether they got anything back from Sun Alliance other than the 3K from cashing in the endowment.

Where do I stand on this 13,500? Sun Alliance have never come after me for this and don't appear to have gone after B&W either? If I am not responsible for the 13,500 then according to my belief I don't owe B&W anything as it was their own stupid fault that they didn't sell a month after repossession for a much higher price. They let the property sit there and rot for two years which seems daft to me!

Please advise me on where I stand with this indemnity. Oh, on one of their "compliance notes" it states BandW Loss 16648.78 and MIG loss 18065.01. If B&W had sold at 52K, there would have been no interest of 10K plus 7K more from the sale so the BandW loss would have been 0.00.

Another doc says Actual Loss 32,796.98 broken down as Normal Loss 14631.97 and Claim 18065.01? How do I treat this indemnity/claim/MIG loss? I really want to go on with this fight especially if B&W aren't responsible for this 13.5K and it has been written off. Sorry about the length of this msg but hope it makes some sense.

-- Jen P (jlzmail@adelphia.net), May 30, 2002

Answers

I've inserted my comments into a copy of your post to retain context...

To recap - B&W claim I owe them 31K - here are my findings from SARN

Monies owed when I handed keys back 65,689.07 –
the 31K is interest of 10K (took them 2 years to sell as they kept rejecting better offers!),
fees of 3K,
loss on sale 21K less my endowment they cashed in of 3K.

They could have sold the property for 7K more, two months after repossession but from the docs I received when I SARNed them, they turned this and subsequent higher offers down.

You should go to the Repossession section and read the page titled: “One reader's findings after serving SARNs on Abbey National” or click on http://www.home- repo.org/reposses/sarnresponse.htm where you will find the comments of a reader who discovered similar nonsense after serving two SARNs on Grabby National. Note the reference and link her comments to the Skipton v Stott case.

Notes on the offers say things like the purchaser (at 52K) was renting property on same street and was ready to buy. Agents were obviously amazed that B&W turned him down as there are exclamation marks and advice to sell.

Excellent evidence to use against them if they ever take you to court!

On this same form where it has "Loss details/recovery action" it says:

Current debt      66,279
indemnity         13,500
break even value  52,779

Based on this, their loss would have been a measly 779pounds but they still didn't accept!!!

This brings me to the next point - when I took out the mortgage for 65,250 - B&W advanced 51,750 and a guarantee was given by Sun Alliance for the remaining 13,500. I paid a one-time fee of 607.50 for this.

(My endowment was also with Sun Alliance (paid mthly) which I presume is something different??)

Yes, your endowment was the method by which you would have been told you would probably been able to repay the amount you originally borrowed. In fact, it probably wouldn’t have repaid it.

I have asked B&W 3 times for copy of MIG but they keep refusing and there is nothing in SARN docs showing whether they got anything back from Sun Alliance other than the 3K from cashing in the endowment.

Where do I stand on this 13,500?

You may owe it, you may not. If the MIG was mis-sold to you or if it was mis-represented as something that would protect you from claims/bills as a result of being unable to continue the mortgage then you should not have to pay it – but you’d only need to argue this if it came to court.

If the £13,500 would have not been claimed if the house had been sold at a more appropriate price – as it appears it should have been – then you should not have to pay it – but you’d only need to argue this if it came to court.

If the last payment on the mortgage was made more than six years ago, the MIG is beyond the six year limitation period, which does apply to the MIG element (because it is a “debt simple” so far as I know)

Sun Alliance have never come after me for this and don't appear to have gone after B&W either?

They are coming to you through B and W. It’s called subrogation. (However, we’ve seen some evidence that lenders do not pass on the MIG element of shortfall settlements to insurers.)

If I am not responsible for the 13,500 then according to my belief I don't owe B&W anything as it was their own stupid fault that they didn't sell a month after repossession for a much higher price. They let the property sit there and rot for two years which seems daft to me!

Agreed.

Please advise me on where I stand with this indemnity. Oh, on one of their "compliance notes" it states BandW Loss 16648.78 and MIG loss 18065.01. If B&W had sold at 52K, there would have been no interest of 10K plus 7K more from the sale so the BandW loss would have been 0.00.

Agreed.

Another doc says Actual Loss 32,796.98 broken down as Normal Loss 14631.97 and Claim 18065.01? How do I treat this indemnity/claim/MIG loss?

Ignore it. You will only have to “do” anything about it if the lender takes you to court and if any of the conditions I mentioned above do not apply.

I really want to go on with this fight especially if B&W aren't responsible for this 13.5K and it has been written off. Sorry about the length of this msg but hope it makes some sense.

Good for you. Fighters usually win.

Let me clarify something… you keep asking how you should deal with things. My suggestion for dealing with things is to find out as much as you can about the lender’s claim, try to find the holes in the claim and then sit back and wait for the lender to make the moves.

You need to pre-equip yourself with info about the quality of the lender’s claim though, partly so that you can feel easier while you sit back and call the lender’s bluff and partly so that if the lender does sue you, you are on top of preparing your defence.

Given that lenders are not usually anxious to give you much info, you have to serve a SARN to find out as much as you can. The only way of finding out more than a SARN can give you is to use Disclosure, but you can only use Disclosure once the lender has begun to sue you.

The one thing you do not want to do, is take the fight into the lender’s territory. You absolutely do not want to write back and say:
“You guys messed up.”

Why? Because they will say:
“You’re right. OK, we’ll lop £20,000 off the amount you owe us but you still owe us £10,000 (or whatever).”

So… don’t give them the opportunity.

If you want to know how write to lenders, see the Readers’ Shortfall Letters page in the Repossession section.

Will the lender sue you? Who knows? As you already know from carefully reading the site… the lender will generally only sue you if you have assets or a PAYE income or if you have left a papertrail of applications for loans, hire purchase or mobile phones.

Lee

-- Lee (repossession@home-repo.org), May 30, 2002.

Ha ha! B&W couldn't defend their actions, stand your ground and very well done on the SARN! You need to get your figurework in date order, ending with the most current figures...but at first glance the situation is this:

Alleged Lender loss is 14,631.97 on main advance The MIG amount insured and which could be potentially paid out to Lender is 18,065 The 13,500 needs clarification but I think you'll find that the 13,500 amount was advanced by B&W under a MIG. 13,500 is the amount they were actually paid by RSA under the MIG and the difference between that and the 18,065 has been added to your debt.

B&W can chase for the 13,500 under Rights of Subrogation, exercised by RSA when the payout is made (date is important in my own opinion because I believe the payout part is debt simple and has a 6 year shelf life) The alleged (and indefensible) 14,631 is probably a specialty debt and will carry a 12 year sentence...and the difference between the MIG payout and the policy loss (of 4,565)is probably a debt simple too. However all this is academic, as if they had an offer which would have cleared the debt, they have to explain to the judge why it wasn't accepted. (Bear in mind they don't have to accept an offer, but they would then be in danger of breaching their duty of care to obtain the best possible price etc etc)

Best of luck!

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.


I guess I'm confused with all this MIG stuff. The original Offer said " the maximum amount which the Society would consider proper to advance upon the security of the property if no other security were taken by the society is 51,750 - the amount by which the advance exceeds the said maximum amount is 13,500 - the society proposes to take security for the advance from a 3rd party - A guarantee given by sun alliance" etc... if I paid 607.50 for this indemnity - shouldn't it cover me for something?? Why do they show "break even" amounts as the mortgage less the 13.5K? To answer one of your questions, the last mortgage payment was made at beginning of 1994 so when I heard from B&W at beginning of 2002 this was 8 years later so doesn't that make the chase for the 13,500 outside the 6 year window? If the indemnity was for 13,500 - how can they have a claim of 18,065.01?? This is how I see their claim: Amount owed as at 3/31/94 65,689.07 (I have a statement from that time stating that exact amount) 13,500 indemnity written off as too late to chase sale of property should have been 52,000 (rejected offer in May 1994) B&W cashing in endowment 3,763 Their costs should be reduced from 3,293.10 to at around 1,500 (lot of gardening/maintenance costs from 1995 - property should have been sold long before then so I am not paying) - I also don't see why they should charge me in-house legal (conveyancing) charges of 550 or an admin fee of 300. Anyhow, the way I see it they actually owe me about 2 grand but I'd be willing to call it even. On the note of them taking me to court - I'd like to see them try as I am a permanant US resident and have been for the last 10 years. I still want to beat them however, to prove a point for us all. On a final note they had one letter in their file that they supposedly sent to me after the sale of the property in 1996. This letter had no mailing address - just my name!! No wonder I never received it. It said they would be sending me a statement of account - according to their records the next letter sent to me was mailed n August 2000 - over 4 years later!! I didn't get this one either - address was not quite right. First contact I had with them was earlier this year. Don't think this would look good in court if they ever got there. I think they may be sweating a little - the last letter I sent them, before I got the SARN info asked them why they rejected each of the higher offers back in 1994. No response as yet although I did receive a call from B&W this past Monday at 5am my time (10am London time)- obviously I didn't answer it and will not be talking to them by phone as I do not want to put my foot in it - safer to have everything in writing. I'm going to look at more of the site tomorrow and will let you know where I think I should go next with this. Cheers everyone

P.S. - there's someone else on this site with a very, very similar B&W claim - same amount, keys handed back, same time frame - I did e- mail him but have not had a response - perhaps we can help him also.

-- Jen P (jlzmail@adelphia.net), May 30, 2002.


Sounds like you are on the right track Jen. I think a lot of us are in similar situations concerning MIG payouts which make up the major part of claims for shortfall liability. A lot would appear to balance on the question of is a MIG payout a debt simple or a specialty debt (as claimed by lenders). There was some talk in a recent posting about upcoming Appeal court cases which may resolve this issue once and for all (or until the next appeal anyway). I still think that the lenders are shit scared of losing this argument which is why it hasn't yet been tested in court and also why the CML introduced their voluntary six year limit. I think you have a strong case but you may just have to accept that they will not concede and get used to rebutting their letters for the next few years.

-- Gordon Bennet (arsenewhinger@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

I think your strongest line of defence is the fact they didnt sell the property for 2 years and from what you said, turned down offers. Have you actually got anything in the SARN in black and white that offers were turned down. If so, I would try to SARN all parties concerned to find out why. It does seem very odd for them to turn it down when they had the chnace to get the property sold for a reasonable amount of money. HTH Lisa

-- lisajh29@hotmail.com (lisajh29@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.


Lisa - I have a page from B&W showing all offers and whether rejected or accepted. SARN info turned up letters from estate agents to BS confirming these offers were rejected. Also have "approval of sale" forms with notes giving BS bottom line - amount offered and notes from agent about offer e.g: 52K offered may 9, 1994 - rejected as bottom line was 53,500 (would have likely been a quick sale as renting on exact same street and was only going for a 60% mortgage) 50k offered may 10, 94 - rejected - nothing in sarn 50.5k offered may 27, 1994 - rejected as bottom line was now 52K - previous possible purch at 52K had now bought elsewhere 51k may 31, 1994 - accepted but fell thru 46k 14th dec, 1994 - rejected so purchaser upped to 50k - agent advised BS to "take it - this is 2,500 above cmv. Has had quite a few viewings although advertising low" - BS still rejected - note on form says "try 51 but don't lose"!! 46k 4 jan, 1995 - agent says "grab it" - comments were try 50 - bottom line 48 - still rejected

and so on..... Do you think I should still SARN agents acting at time or is this enough

Gordon - if they keep hounding me do I just ignore them or should I reply to them each time - if so, what do I say.

This MIG thing is weird - if "the Society proposes to take security for the advance (13,500) from a third party" being SA - wouldn't SA upon sale of property either have paid BS the 13,500 or come after them for it?? If so, wouldn't there be documentation to this effect. Did SA put up this money in the beginning or did BS put it up and SA guarantee it?? As I paid the 607.50 fee am I entitled to see anything? Should I request copy of indemnity again? I really am not sure what I paid this 607.50 for? Here's the other thing I need explained - if on the "approval of sale" forms it says current debt 66,279 indemnity 13,500 break even value 52,779

why are they taking out the indemnity to show a break even value. If they or SA have to pay the indemnity shouldn't that be included in break even value??

One other thing I found which is confusing me - a personal data form from BS says original loan amount 65,250 scheduled principle balance 34,495.46 current pay off 36,058.36

further down it says Account Status C=Closed and again Status C=Closed any ideas??

I don't know if the incredibly bright Bristol and West realize I live in the US full time - if they issue a court order does anyone know if it'll just sit there??

-- JEN P (jlzmail@adelphia.net), May 31, 2002.


Chances are from what you say that the MIG policy was paid out by RSA to B&W. There should be a breakdown of the claim in the papers they have supplied to you, or you should ask for one if not. Rather than ignore their letters you should follow the advice on this site and put them to strict proof of claim. If they ignore your requests for information or explanation of mis-selling then simply repeat the request in a polite but to the point letter and lob this back to them.

Eventually they will either have to produce the information or run the risk of looking obstructive under the court procedure rules.

From what you have said I can't see that they would risk a court case so their plan will be to grind you down in the hope that you will eventually cough up some money.

If you are not intending to return to the UK before the 12 year period as defined in the 1980 limitations act is up then my advice would be to refuse to acknowledge the debt they are claiming and keep asking for information until you have obtained all the records.

If you are intending to come back to the UK and live then you might want to clear your credit record in order to purchase property or other reasons. It would pay you to reach a deal from the US since they are most unlikely to try to chase you through US courts, and you can negotiate from a position of strength.

-- Gordon Bennet (arsenewhinger@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.


Well, I just received an answer from my letter to B&W about why they didn't accept one of the higher offers. This is their reply: An offer of 52,000 was received in May 1994 this was rejected and the purchaser increased the offer to 53,500 the purchaser pulled out and gave no reason - there is absolutely NOTHING in sarn docs saying this guy increased the offer. The "approval of sale" form says "PP will not increase higher than 52K" and on another form 2 weeks later says "your (B&W) approval no. 2097/94 said bottom line 53,500 (on an offer of 52K from Platt, who has now bought else where)"

I am going to write back to them asking for written proof of the increase to 53,500 as their is nothing in SARN docs. I am also going to ask about written proof on others. I also am going to ask yet again for copies of indemnity that I paid 607.50 for. Will keep you posted. I have looked over the repossessions page which is where I receive a lot of hints.

Question - how do I know that the BS don't forge documents - it would be very, very easy to copy a sales form and then void out the old info and put in forged info - should I call the estate agents to ask for copies they may have or do I have to sarn them - sarning is not always the easiest as I do not have a bank a/c in the uk for the fee - doyou think its worth me calling them to see if they'll fax docs to me?

-- Jen p (jlzmail@adelphia.net), May 31, 2002.


Hi jen p,

Hmm, you have a very suspicious mind - good for you!

Yes, it would be very easy indeed, and yes, call or write to the estate agents or sarn them or both. Forging documents to gain an advantage over you is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. Personally, I wouldn't believe any document to be true, unless you can see the origonal - but that's just my opinion.

Good luck Stephen

-- (stephen.pooley@ntlworld.com), May 31, 2002.


Re: B&W's latest letter saying guy who offered 52k upped it to 53.5k - I called the estate agent of the time to see if they have any records of these offers- unfortunately the manager dealing with it at the time (1994) has left and they informed me they only keep records going back 3 years.

-- Jen P (jlzmail@adelphia.net), June 01, 2002.


Business records must be kept (by Law) for six years. Estate Agents will have a fiche at H.O.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), June 01, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ