some thoughts on MIGs and limitationsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
After more years than I care to remember being threatened, bullied and lied to by Citibank International plc, they have finally agreed to leave us alone (and have accepted a cheque for £2k). One thing that I was particularly interested in was the MIG policy, which they repeatedly refused to let me see. In response to continued pressing from the IC, they eventually stated that none of the data relating to the policy was stored in any way that would allow it to be linked to my own personal data (therefore it doesn't fall under the terms of the DPA SARN). The reason I wanted to see it, of course, was to see if the subrogated debt associated with it could really be chased legally for 12 years. In fact, however, I think Citibank's statement to the IC gives the same result; if it is not linked in any way to the mortgagor's personal data, it surely cannot be subject to the special 12 year limit applied to the mortgage itself. My feeling is that this is just another nail in the already well-nailed coffin of a putative 12 yr limit on MIG debts. All related thoughts welcome.
-- Melody (email@example.com), September 18, 2002
Under subrogation, the MIG 'steps into the shoes of the lender' and acquires all the rights of the lender (s5 Mercantile law Amendment Act 1865). This means that if the limitation period for the lender was 12 years (principal) and 6 years (interest), it will be the same for the MIG.
I don't see how there can not be some record of the MIG in your personal data. If there was no reference to it, how did they know that they had a policy that covered your loan? Somewhere there must be a piece of data which includes your loan details and the MIG that covered it.
I suppose that it is possible if all their mortgages had MIGs but this seems unlikely to me.
As you probably know, lenders buy MIG policies in blocks - I doubt if there was a specific policy for your loan.
As I understand it the IC regards details of the MIG as confidential between the contracting parties (which does not include the borrower, even though s/he paid the premium).
I can't see the connection between what is or is not disclosed under the SARN and the limitation period, but I am not a DPA expert and might have missed something.
What about sarning the MIG insurer - if they are to recover the money they paid out they will have to prove their debt and produce details of the policy
I have very recently come accross a case where the MIG is suing the borrower directly in its own name (in the MIGs name that is) and I (think) I have found a case which says that this can't be done (that it must be done in the lender's name) but I am not sure as it was only a one line reference in a law book, and its an old case and very difficult to find a copy of a judgment.
The MIG's solicitors also claim the the limitation period runs from the date that it paid-out to the lender. I think this is completely wrong - the MIG itself has no cause of action against the borrower - its only rights come thru the lender. By stepping into the lender's shoes, it cannot get more or better rights than the lender - and we know that the lender does not get a new cause of action on the sale of the property, even where there is a specific covenant to that effect (see B&W v Barlett (para 28).
Any further thoughts appreciated
All the best
In another case I came accross which is very near to full and final settlement (offer accepted, money raised but not yet paid over), the lender refuses even to disclose whether there is a MIG - any ideas?
-- Guy (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 18, 2002.