Eviction Ordersgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I handed in the keys with a letter 1998 after receiving a letter advising the lender was going to take legal proceedings to repossess my house. I didn't hang about and left before receiving any more info from them.
The SARN info shows I've been charged fees for executing eviction, but is this necessary when you've given up the house voluntarily??
I've asked for a copy of the original account from the Sheriff Officers but they said this is 3rd party info and I'm not due it under the Data Protection Act.
Also I asked the lender if there was a Money Order/Repossession Order and they said they no longer had a copy. I got a copy of my credit file from Equifax and nothing is mentioned on there. Is it any benefit to me that there doesn't seem to be any of these orders against me?? Am I right to think there's a fair chance I won't be on the Mortgage Lenders Repossession List?
Any advice or Info appreciated.
-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), September 23, 2002
There are several points to make about your situation that - if they are correct - apply to many others who ask similar questions.
You know the circumstances in which you left the security property and you now know that the records of the (sadly) unnamed lender appear not to reflect these facts. That suggests to me that the lender has made the numbers up. Given that some lenders routinely get these details wrong, I would speculate that some lenders are basing many of their repossession shortfall claims on numbers that they are getting from a template that already contains "likely" numbers.
An Abbey National executive has admitted in a private meeting with one repossessee and a witness that Abbey National does not have all of the repossessee's case's records. (Note to Abbey National: don't bother calling your lawyers on to me over this claim - I am fully aware of all the details of that meeting, the agreements made in and after that meeting and the current problem over you not fully meeting your part of the agreement that was reached with respect to the Jones's. I was involved in the preparations for that meeting and in deciding the terms that were discussed in the days between the meeting and the beginning of the confidentiality agreement that it led to.) Bradford & Bingley is reported to have lost many, many customers' records (see: http://www.home- repo.org/library/31-1-2001.htm) and three months ago was suing the storage company - Hays - for £20m+ in the High Court. The record of that case is publicly available: High Court case HQ0002529 (Bradford & Bingley BS v Hays).
If it is true that a lender's details appear wrong, this means that you could use discovery/disclosure to have these details evidenced before a court would hear the lender's claim.
Lenders do not have to supply third party details in SARN responses. But this does not matter. They do have to supply those details as part of the discovery/disclosure process *if* they try to bring the case to court.
This site encourages people to issue SARNs not because SARNs force the lender to reveal everything but because SARNS force the lender to reveal more than it wants to and because you can use that information to spot inaccuracies. Knowing the inaccuracies makes you feel more comfortable and gives you something to home in on.
It is well worth reading the complete sequence of letters between myself and Bradford & Bingley over third party and similar issues. This site originates from that chain of letters. See: http://www.home-repo.org/reposses/letter1.htm and use the drop-down box at the top to work through them.
-- Lee (email@example.com), September 23, 2002.