----< What's bugging Britannia Building Society? >---------------
They won a court case.

But when the defendant put leaflets about the case under the windscreen wipers of Britannia members' cars at the society's AGM, be-suited people rushed out and removed them.

When the defendant published his allegations on a series of websites... they were removed shortly after they were put up.

And when the defendant got police fraud investigators to look into the circumstances of the case...
... Britannia and/or its lawyers told the investigators that the case never went to court (it did)
...and that it was settled out of court (it wasn't)
...and that the settlement was amicable (it certainly wasn't)
...and that it was settled on the 11th March (it was decided by judge Dabezies in Willesden County Court on 14th March).

So what is it that the Britannia doesn't want people to know about the case that it won?

(Home Repossession Page note: All the links below are broken. The site is now at: http://www.britanniabuildingsociety.org/)

We have our own views, but you can read the defendant's at:
http://homepages.go.com/~britanniafraud/index.html

The sites that have been pulled so far include:
http://www.geocities.com/britannia_fraud_prevention
http://www.crosswinds.net/~britanniafraud/
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/britanniafraud/

You can email the defendant at britanniafraud@my-deja.com

----< NAMV wants to hear from Consumer Loans victims >-------
The National Association of Mortgage Victims wants to hear from you if you have a mortgage with Solihull-based Consumer Loans.

NAMV is grilling the Bank of England - which owns Consumer Loans - over its alleged poor treatment of customers.

There have also been rumours for some time that Martineau Walker lawyer David Milton would start a class action against Consumer Loans or its parent National Mortgage Bank (NMB).

Anyone who has or has had a mortgage with Consumer Loans won't need to be told what an unpleasant experience it can be. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, National Mortgage Bank chairman Ian Hay-Davison told The Times last November that it treats its customers the way it does because it is trying to close its own business down.

That's because the Bank of England does not want to run the mortgage-lending companies that it is left with after it "rescued" them during the BCCI crisis.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the company was owned, at the time, by National Home Loans - now called Paragon Group.

NAMV wants NCL customers to call it for details. Not that this is not a premium phone line.

NAMV's number is: 01889 507394

----< Ocwen renamed igroup >-------------
Now that the laughter has died down you may be able to hear our attempts to tell you that Ocwen has renamed itself igroup.

Ocwen is well-known to many readers of this newsletter for its less-than-pleasant dealings with its customers, or indeed, anyone who has tried to change the way it deals with customers.

The renaming comes after its management bought the business from US parent Ocwen Financial in October last year. That left Ocwen Financial still owning 30% of Kensington Mortgage Company - another British specialist mortgage company - and one against which Ocwen/igroup would now be competing.

The laughter? Apparently the "i" in igroup stands for "integrity".

We have evidence that igroup/Ocwen employees still have trouble understanding the meaning of "integrity".

Soon after the buyout, votes against Kensington Mortgage Company in the Home Repossession Page's Good and Bad Lender voting page soared.

Our server logs reported that the votes were being placed by different computers belonging to Ocwen.

----< The Mortgage Corporation >-----------------------------------------------
"The story should be told," a Mortgage Corporation customer wrote to us this week. He wants Mortgage Corporation customers to submit stories of their experiences with this lender to the Home Repossession Page. The idea is to see what similarities there might be.

We've seen enough emails from former Mortgage Corporation customers to have some idea.

If anyone wants to tell us the story of their experience with the Mortgage Corporation, go ahead. We'll compile them and put you in touch with each if required.

----< Keep your documents >------------------------------------
A few readers have written in to say that they have been appalled by their solicitors' handling of their cases and refused to pay them. As a result, their solicitors clung on to the documents submitted by customers.

The lesson, points out one reader, is this: don't hand over originals of your documents. When you appoint your solicitor - all dewy-eyed at the great things he or she is going to do for you - try to bring yourself to hand over only copies of all the documents.

It may save you considerable heartache later on.

----< The 6-year / 12-year rule >------------------------------
This now boils down to customers claiming they are protected from shortfall claims after six years and lenders' answering that the Global Finance case confirmed that they have 12 years to pursue shortfall claims.

Well, yes and no. Despite the Global Finance case, Abbey National backed down and paid the legal costs of a couple called the Holmans who threatened to take the issue to the Appeal Court. This much we all knew… Most of us were surprised that the Abbey National paid the Holman's legal costs and have read it as a sign that the Abbey was desperate to keep the case out of the Appeal Court in case the judges ruled against the Abbey. Why should that matter? Because judges in every other similar case would have to abide by the same principle as a judgement made in the Appeal Court.

Several readers have now passed us copies of the press release put out by companies allegedly associated with the Holmans shortly after the case. We include it here for your interest:

PRESS STATEMENT
ABBEY NATIONAL MORTGAGES PLC
v
HOLMANS & HOLMANS

1. The case of Abbey National v. Holmans was due to be heard in the Court of Appeal this Thursday the 9th March 2000. It concerned the question whether the limitation period for claims to mortgage debt after possession and sale of the mortgaged property is 6 years or 12 years. This is a question of law involving the interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980 which has been unclear - particularly since the decision of the Court of Appeal in the unreported case of Hopkinson v. Tupper 30th January 1997 in which the view was expressed by Auld LJ that it was highly arguable that the limitation period was only 6 years.

2. It is believed that Abbey National v. Holmans is the first case to have reached the Court of Appeal on this question and that very many other cases raising the same question awaited its outcome. The problem of mortgage shortfall debt was highlighted by the report in December 1999 of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) entitled "The Long Shadow". This report identified the distress caused to borrowers evicted from their homes in the last property recession who - out of the blue- have received claims for substantial shortfall debt many years after they lost their home. Until now lenders have taken the view that they could wait for up to 12 years before making claims.

3. In January 2000 the Council of Mortgage Lenders voluntarily agreed not to pursue any new claims more than 6 years old. However, that concession has not so far extended to existing claims such as that in Abbey National v. Holmans.

4. Mr and Mrs Holmans are of extremely modest means. Mr. Holmans is a full-time carer for his wife and son who are both disabled. They had, like many people, been encouraged to buy their Council house in Sittingbourne, Kent and borrowed money from CIBC Mortgages in 1989. They fell into arrears shortly afterwards because of the steep rise in interest rates and their property was repossessed in March 1990. The repossession was extremely traumatic for the family and the family at one point was living in one room. After the sale of the property in 1990 no claim was made for the outstanding mortgage debt. The family eventually moved to the North East in the mid-1990's and then out of the clear blue sky, 9 years after their home had been repossessed, they received a claim for their outstanding debt in November 1998. The Abbey National claimed a shortfall of over £10,000 and when they tried to discover from the Abbey how the shortfall had been made up the next thing they received was a County Court summons through the post for £17,000.

5. They had the good sense to take the advice of David Randall, a money adviser employed by Derwentside District Council, who had recently read an article by Peter Madge in the Adviser Magazine which referred to the possibility of a defence in these cases as set out in Hopkinson v Tupper. He advised them to immediately file a holding defence on this ground and to seek legal advice. Their solicitors applied for Legal Aid which was granted in March 1999. Local barrister Michelle Temple dealt with the matter in the first instance. The Abbey National obtained judgement against Mr and Mrs Holmans in July 1999 on appeal to Newcastle County Court from a decision of Mr District Judge Cuthbertson. The Judge gave the Holmans leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the claim was statute barred because it had not been brought within 6 years of the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly, the issue as to whether the limitation period for such claims was 6 or 12 years was the issue in the appeal.

6. In preparing for the appeal the solicitors for Mr and Mrs Holmans were given a lot of support from Liz Phelps at N.A.C.A.B., (National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureau) and Nick Pearson of F.I.A.C., (Federation of Independent Advice Centres). They gave the Holmans' solicitors invaluable assistance to prove that the case was a test case and put them into contact with Advice Centres and solicitors from all over the country who were dealing with similar cases and revealed the full extent of the problem.

7. As the date of the appeal came closer it became increasingly clear that the Abbey National did not want this matter tried and on Tuesday 7 March 2000 Abbey National voluntarily agreed to waive any claim for judgement debt and to pay Mr and Mrs Holmans' costs for the action in the appeal on an indemnity basis. Since Mr and Mrs Holmans were legally aided they had no option but to accept that offer. Accordingly, the appeal will not be heard and the issue will not be decided in this case. Although the result is excellent from Mr and Mrs Holmans' point of view it is unfortunate that the issue will not be determined once and for all. It appears that this particular lender did not want the issue to be determined. It is hoped from the point of view of borrowers faced with he distress of stale claims to mortgage debt that the case will highlight the problems further and that the Council of Mortgage Lenders will now agree to extend the concession made in respect of future claims to past claims and call an amnesty on all present claims to debt which were not brought within the 6 years of the accrual of the relevant cause of action. The case also highlights the continuing importance of Legal Aid to the ordinary client. Without it this case would never have been brought so far and the Holmans could have suffered the injustices of a large debt against them for the rest of their lives.

8. Mr and Mrs Holmans were represented by Jonathan Brock QC of Falcon Chambers instructed by Mrs Flynn of Swinburne Jackson & Partners, Consett, Co. Durham

----< Changes to the website >--------------------------------
The legal advice in the Repossession section has seen minor updates

[ends]

Home Page	Receive free news and updates
	Tell a friend about this site
© The Home Repossession Page 1997-2000