# Judgement against mortgage already now further demands



## doubledeb (5 Sep 2012)

Hi all i would appreciate your help or advise with the following issue.
My OH borrowed money from a bank back in 2008. With this he took out payment protection. He ticked the boxes that he was self employed and that he was suffering from a medical condition.

6 months later he couldn't work due to this medical condition and made a claim on his PPI. He was told he couldn't claim because he was self employed.

He informed the bank of this and that he would be unable to pay back the loan due to ill health. 12 months later a judgement on the mortgage was obtained.

He went to a "mis sold PPI company" and they were able to prove he was mis-sold the PPI and he received all he had paid into it, back.

3 years later and another letter arrived. This time from a debt collection agency, looking for the loan to be paid again. 

Does anyone know what his stand is on this? Should the original loan have been cleared as he had taken out a PPI?, they admitted this PPI was mis-sold. There is already a judgement on the mortgage, what next?


----------



## thunder99 (5 Sep 2012)

If your hubby got all he's PPI premiums back, I would presume it was  because the policy was voided. Can't really see them giving back the  premiums and still paying out on it.

 As for whether they should pay or not, if their terms say that  self-employed people aren't covered - then I couldn't imagine them paying  out. The bank shouldn't have sold the policy but your husband should  also have read what he was signing.

 I know a couple of years ago I took a business loan as a sole trader and  they tried to sell me one of those policies. I took a quick look at the  policy in the bank and just told them I wouldn't be covered as I was  self employed, so it was no good to me. I'm not sure if the bank were  chancing their arm or if they guy dealing with me really didn't know I wouldn't be covered.


----------



## doubledeb (5 Sep 2012)

Thank you for your reply.

He ticked the boxes in relation to being self employed, and also the box that he was under the care of doctors for a medical condition. The reason he took the policy was to cover him in case his condition got worse!

Isn't a PPI there to make the repayments for you in case of an accident/unemployment/illness?

The PPI should never have been sold to him in the first place as he was self employed. That was the banks fault. So it left him in a very awkward position.

My query though is if there is already a judgement against the mortgage, what else can they do? The house is in serious neg eq so it wouldn't be in their interests to force a sale. Can they assess my income even though its not my loan? Its also an unsecured loan, so I don't understand how they can get a judgement on the mortgage in the first place.

Can I just add, that it was a condition of him getting the loan in the first place that he had to take out a  PPI before it could be approved.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Sep 2012)

thunder99 said:


> If your hubby got all he's PPI premiums back, I would presume it was  because the policy was voided. Can't really see them giving back the  premiums and still paying out on it..



Agreed. It's very clear. You got your premiums back so you can't claim. 

I presume the registration of a judgment against a property doesn't stop the creditor calling to recover the money. They have very limited threats though. They can't actually do anything further.

Brendan


----------



## doubledeb (5 Sep 2012)

Thank you for your reply Brendan.

You say limited threats, but can they go down the court route again or are they just sending out more letters to see if he is in a position to settle?

I thought a judgement on the mortgage was the final straw?


----------



## elcato (5 Sep 2012)

Was the letter addressed to him or you. This is often a tactic used by collectors to see if any circumstances have changed or to see if a partner is more willing to settle up. I would tend to dismiiss it for now and if a letter for court proceedings come then answer the fact that you were there already and have a judgement against you. Just make sure you appear in any court preceedings so you can tell your side of the story to the judge.


----------



## doubledeb (5 Sep 2012)

Thank you Elcato

Oh the letter was for him.  The only letter I got regarding the situation was when the judgement was issued.  

The bank in question wouldn't be the most understanding either!.  OH rang the debt collection agency yesterday and they want a statement of means within 7 days.  Are you saying we should ignore this request or send it on and see what happens?

It was verging on harrassment the last time all this was going on, even though he tried to explain his situation very clearly to them.  I thought thats why they went ahead with the judgement.


----------



## Bronte (6 Sep 2012)

Can we clear up this story somewhat.  

It's a family home jointly owned by you and your husband.  The house is in massive negative equity.  Your husband took out a loan and did not pay it back so the bank put a judgment mortgage on the house.  They have not sought a sale presumably because it's in negative equity.  Now instead they've passed the debt to debt collectors.  If you have no money to pay them then you cannot.  You are not liable for this debt as it was only you're husband's.  

You need to check out the bone fides of the debt collectors first.  Does your husband have any income to pay them.  If not I cannot see what they can do. 

In relation to the insurance, is this not a policy that pays out as income replacement for a certain amount of time in the event of illness?  It is not a policy to pay off the debt in the case of illness?  Was it a condition of the loan that the policy be taken out?

It seems your husband agreed to the settlement with a mis selling company.  It's too late now but he may have been better off going to the ombudsman to get the policy to pay out as they were in the wrong.  Cannot see how you could take a claim now.


----------



## doubledeb (6 Sep 2012)

Yes Bronte it was a condition of the loan that the policy be taken out.  He should have never been sold the policy as he was self employed.

Ya the ombudsman may have been a better call but hindsight is great isn't it!
He's going to talk to his solicitor to get some proper legal advise as to where he stands.

Thanks for the replies


----------



## Savvy (14 Sep 2012)

Yes the FSO is where this should have gone. My limited understanding is that their was good faith on your side and that the contract shouldn't have been voidable due to an underwriter error .Of course if the contract stated that you must not be self employed then the contract would have been voided.
I've heard of other cases where items were not picked up on proposal forms by underwriters and the insurance companies were still liable when a claim was made.


----------

