Judge adjourned hearing due to Sarn request not being met

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

Hi, have been reading the do@s and dont's, unfortunately this particular company, Asset Recoveries Uk Ltd who bought a shortfall debt, have gained a Interim Charging Order on my home by default. Have contended it and had a hearing on Thursday, these people turned up to court with information not given to me by my SARN, what are they playing at? I'm back in court in maybe a month! They are not part of the CML, but bought the debt from a member, can this be used in court? Plus they have never looked for the joint mortgagee, does'nt the law say they need to be seen to, and what do I do if my info does/nt come in time for my next hearing? I need a solicitors help now, but not afford one, can anyone give me some good advice?

Look forward to hearing from you


-- Monika Murphy (monzz@blueyonder.co.uk), March 21, 2003



I hope you sent your SARN request by Recorded Delivery. You should now consider lodging a complaint with the information Commissioner and it will take several months for them to make any assessment. Meantime you could try writing to the court enclosing copies of the relevant info and explain that this company are not disclosing information and that in effect it will deny you a fair hearing. Ask that they adjourn the case for say 3 months to allow this company time to comply with the Data Protection Act (this might help you come across as a reasonable person).

I don't know much about court procedures so I don't know how practical my suggestions are....hopefully someone else will advise!!

Please also check you have SARN'd everyone else involved in your case as it might turn up something !!

The CAB might help with representation...

Anyway I don't know if this has been much help..but I wish you every success!!

Keep us posted.


-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), March 22, 2003.


How long after the sale of your repossessed property was the shortfall bought by the debt collector?

I don't think the fact that they have never looked for the joint mortgagor is a legal requirement (Mortgagor=Borrower, Mortgagee=Lender). What does concern me, and as Eleanor Scott has mentioned to me in the past, Lenders/Debt Collectors appear to be picking predominantly on women, what does everyone else think?

A solicitor's view is that if a creditor sells a debt, the purchaser acquires all the same rights and responsibilities as the original creditor, the vendor. Another interesting point to bear in mind is that in one case I know of a case was dismissed because the debt had been assigned defectively.

If you do the following (obtained from a solicitor) this should get you more time:

Parties can agree to an extension of up to 28 days for filing a defence. Where such an extension is agreed, the defendant must notify the court un writing (CPR 15.5).

If this cannot be agreed, the defendant can apply to court to extend time for filing a defence under the court's general powers of case management.

CPR 3.1(2) states that except where the rules provide otherwise, the court may -

(a) extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired).

I assume that any such application would be on court form N244 with a fee of 50.00 but it would be sensible to check this with the relevant court (as not all courts do things the same way!)

In the N244 application, the reasons for the extension must be set out, e.g. the claimant's delay/failure in providing information/documentation, and it should be stated that, under the 'overriding objective', failure to grant an extension would result in a miscarriage of justice. This should all go on part C of the form, on the reverse side.

Monika, I think the fact that the debt collector has not been co- operating goes in your favour. Have you tried contacting the NAMV? They have solicitors who may be able to help. I think I and other people on this site can give you some guidelines, but it would be better to get professional help from someone experienced in defending a mortgage shortfall victim ,and who can represent you in court.

Some info on setting up a defence:

One general point on defences that it's useful to remember is that it is usually not enough to make a mere denial, it is usually necessary to say why something is being denied. . For example, it is not enough to say "I deny owing the money". The reason why the debt is denied needs to be stated: e.g. "because I have already paid the claimant", or "I do not admit the claim because the claimant has fail to prove the debt".

Also, if a claim is to be defended, it is useful to go through the particulars of claim and respond to them one by one, and say, for example, "para one of the partics of claim is not admitted", "para two of the partics of claim is denied. The claimant has failed to prove the debt. The defendant puts the claimant on proof etc. etc." or "The defendant admits para 3. of the particulars of claim" etc.

Monika, another snippet from a solicitor I have is:

If the info/documents that a defendant is missing relate to statements of account, copy agreements etc., i.e. to proof of the amount owed, the lack of these is no bar to the defendant filing a defence. As CPR 16.5(4) shows, unless the defendant expressly admits the claim for money, it is taken that he/she requires it to be proved.

If you can't get professional help come back to me/us and I'm sure we'll all do the best we can.

Hope this goes someway to helping. Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

I agree that they go after women more than men - we are usually the sitting ducks with the kids and jobs to make ends meet.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Totally agree target who they think will be a soft option.

I have written to my MP telling her that it is appalling that as soon as single mums get "off benefits and into work" they get sued. Whats the point???

-- Allye (migclaim@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

I agree they tend to chase divorced women, especially if they have children. As a single working mum, I was surviving on 300 a month to feed and cloth both of us, plus bills and run a car, after paying rent, (I wasn't entitled to benefits). The Halifax at one stage assessed that I had SIXTY pound a month spare!!!! When I pointed out that my daughter had to wear second hand shoes because I couldn't afford to buy new ones, they said they would leave the matter until a time when my financial situation improved.

They NEVER contacted my ex husband who was living rent free at his mums and earning over 30 grand a year. He bought himself a flash sports car so he certainly had extra cash. I even gave them his details, but he said he had never heard anything until recently when I started to ask questions and they probably realised I was not just going to hand over my money without them proving I owed it. When I got the results of my Sarn, it said of my ex husband about the time I told them where to contact him, "have spoken to ex-wife, she doesn't know his whereabouts" !!!!

Seems to me they know women with children are more unlikely to cause trouble which may result in causing their children further suffering. These women are more likely to pay up to keep the wolves from the door - even though in a lot of cases, it causes more financial hardship.

Don't forget as well that some women start new relationships, and sometimes their new partners are in a position to pay off the alleged "debts", thinking they actually exist! Anything for an easy life.

These financial organisations rely on the fact that most people are ignorant of the law, so they use scare tactics and harrassment to get money. Working women on low incomes with children are an easier target than a single man with no responsibilites and a pocket full of money to pay good lawyers with.

Of course, this is only MY opinion because yes, I am bitter and twisted, and I'm sure that's not how they really operate!!


-- One Angry Mother (madcow678@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.


I agree to a point but have to say that this hasn't been the case in our situation. My fiancee lived with his parents and they were hounding him by telephone at work and post on an almost daily basis, he was paying a lot of money on a mortgage on his parents property and didn't have much spare cash as he has 3 children. His ex lives on benefits and they are hounding her exactly the same but she just puts the letters in the bin. Since stumbling across this excellent site and following the advice given they now contact about once every 6 months, last time we heard anything was last October. My own personal view is they just dig their claws in to whoever they can find. A solicitor recently told me that court cases for repossessions are done in alphabetical order and they just pick names off a list regardless of circumstances or situation but that doing what we do on this site is no bad thing.

-- Chris (chris@anon.co.uk), March 25, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ