While wading my way through the Sarn info I've noticed that the solicitors handling the reposession actually claimed my (?) insurance to replace a shower. I spotted a note saying the reason for the claim was "theft". We left our house in great condition (no damage etc) but we did take our shower with us as it was ours to take as we had bought and installed it. They claimed and received 150 which they seem to have added to the shortfall. I know it's not a lot of money but the implication that we stole something could discredit us in court. Why the need to replace a shower when there was a bath?

Should I query this claim and ask for all the documentation relating to the claim?

Any advice is appreciated,

-- too scared to say (, July 19, 2002


The purchaser of your property seems to have been given the red carpet treatment - do you have their name and employment details?


-- (, July 19, 2002.

Ah yes, the old ploy of F&F. Not the type of F&F you might be thinking about however. Fixtures and fittings are the property of the mortgagee (the Lender) upon repossession, so unfortunately they were within their rights. Think of it this way - you don't strip the wallpaper off the walls do you? Take the taps? Once installed a shower is a fixture. I had installed exquisite panels in glass doors in my place - which mysteriously disappeared along with the Victorian fireplace in between repo and sale. They were replaced with a plain glass panels and a cheap gas fire. Since I was hundreds of miles away at the time and the Lender had changed the locks, they very oddly backed off on making the same type of claim.

-- Too scared to say (, July 20, 2002.

Same thing happened to me - very expensive fieplaces and living flame gas fires in both reception rooms - someone snuck in and 'stole' them!!! Again after locks had been changed etc. We left them because, as the earlier posting said, they are classed as fixtures and fittings and as such belong to the 'purchaser'.

Good luck

-- d (, July 25, 2002.

If expensive fireplaces, doors etc were in situ when the house was repo'd and then missing and it is not obviously burglary - surely this is negligence on behalf of the lender and their agents who were looking after the property?

Although the house might not lose value because the items are missing, if a once perfect house is poorly presented, it will attract a lower offer - in other words undersold.

In your case, you took the shower. Strictly speaking it was a fixture and should have remained. The solicitors have claimed off the insurance claiming 'theft'. But was it really theft, and have they reported a 'theft' to the police? I think the solicitors are on dodgy ground.

-- pendle (, July 25, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ