Hoping anyone can clarify for me.
Details dec 2012 sequestration awarded, dec 2013 discharged
LENDER1:-
Repossessed flat during sequestration year and very quickly sold at a shortfall without ever having put up a for sale sign, selling for less than other flats in same block.
Court Citation issued for a hearing in relation to the debt represented by the shortfall.
Will we continually be pursued for this? We didn't attend court-what will that change?
LENDER 2:-
Repossessed 2 flats and call me periodically to ask how I plan to pay the shortfalls, have given trustees contact details but still get calls.
FACTORS
One has denied me insurance cover whilst delaying the provision of separate accounts for pre and post sequestration. Now that those separate accounts have been issued, the factor (both actually) have added a factoring float charge to the post sequestration acct. This is payable in terms of the deeds when a new owner buys and as such was paid by us already.
[?]Anyone KNOW if this is right.
[?]If it has to be paid again, can they charge us for insurance they've excluded us from.?
We had to pay for damage caused by a water leak from an upstairs flat including a new front door as fire officers had to break in as the alarm was set off when electrics were affected by the water.
CREDIT CARD LENDERS:-
Change of company for the umpteenth time, do we need to have dialogue with them, seems the accounts were passed on again/sold, offering us a settlement of x% of total.
[?]How long will this go on?
Hi RBSB.
I'd have thought the shortfall (Lender 1) would fall into your sequestration assuming that you owned with this mortgage it when you became bankrupt? I can't advise you about your non-attendance at court as that's a legal matter about which I have no knowledge.
Re Lender 2 - wouldn't the same principle apply? Hopefully Mark or David can share their thoughts on this in due course.
I can't answer any of the questions regarding the actions of the factors I'm afraid.
Regarding the credit cards, their debt collection agents or assignees, you may need to prove your sequestration to them in order for them to update their files.
Thanks TDA, I have tried to call companies and tell them the dates and reference numbers etc, they claim to have no knowledge. It seems this could carry on a long time if agents of agents are still passing on or selling accounts.
You are discharged from all debts and obligations which existed prior to the award of sequestration. As the mortgages in question existed before this date then you are indeed discharged from any liability for the shortfalls.
It's a shame that you didn't have any representation at court as this could have been pointed out and would have presumably put an end to any further recovery action from the lender.
Thanks Kevin, would you suggest contacting the solicitor for the lender to clarify at this stage?
Kevin, do you have any thoughts in how the factors accounts should be managed?
Yes, I think contacting the solicitor may be worth doing. You should advise them of the Trustee's details too.
I'm not sure I quite understand about the factor's accounts to be honest - how does this float charge work?
Factors appointed to manage common areas are paid a float amount typically £200-£500 per owner.
This is paid along with conveyancing costs on purchase and tends to be covered by the title deeds.
We paid the factor float charge on purchase.
Thereafter, a monthly charge is billed to each owner for gardening, cleaning, insurance and maintenance.
Whilst waiting for apportioned accounts to be produced, we were denied insurance cover for damage caused by a leak From an upstairs property.
When the apportioned accounts were produced a second float was being charged which we argue is unjustified as there was no purchase or change of ownership.
It's not something I've come across before RBSB. I think it probably boils down to what the contractual obligations are as to whether they can charge this or not. It may be an argument that you could win, but if the factors refuse to change their stance and it means going to court etc, with the potential costs involved in getting legal advice and representation then it might not be an argument worth winning. And of course, they may be able to back up their argument...