# Damages for illegal appointment of receiver



## Richie1974 (7 May 2019)

Hi,

I hope someone can offer me advice.
Ulster bank have just confirmed to me that when they sold on my mortgage to a vulture fund they sold it on in error as a buy to let when it should of been a private dwelling home.I had informed them that I was  temporally renting my home out , my contract remained as a PDH. ccma was not applied but more importantly a receiver was illegally appointed to my home from Jan 2017 until now( receiver in process of been removed).

So my question is I want to claim damages off them for trespassing,expenses ,stress
And not being able to return to my home with my family.
I have no idea of how much I should be looking for as I am struggling to see a similar case anywhere, any suggestions?

I will see if ULster Bank will negotiate if not I plan on going to the FSPO.

Thanks


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 May 2019)

Were you in arrears? 

Whether or not you were in arrears, they were entitled to sell your mortgage to anyone they liked. 

Why did you let your house out? 

When did you try to move back in and what happened? 

When did you raise the problem that the receiver was invalidly appointed? 

I would imagine all these would be taken into consideration when deciding what damages, if any, you would get.

Brendan


----------



## Richie1974 (7 May 2019)

Yes I was in arrears .(I offered to pay of all arrears to fund but it was turned down) I am not disputing them selling on the loan just .the status of it .

I moved to the uk for work and rented out home.

The appointment of the receiver was raised with the receiver (Mazars) and the LG Asset who were serving the loan ,both pretty much ignored our questioning of the validity of the appointment of the receiver

Ulster bank were made aware in October it is only recently I got confirmation of their error

Due to the fact the receiver was appointed I could not move home as  I would  of been trespassing


----------



## Richie1974 (7 May 2019)

Of course I am working on the fact that Ulster bank have admitted their error and from that the receiver was illegally appointed and have been trespassing , maybe I am jumping the gun in respect of damages.


----------



## cremeegg (7 May 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> Of course I am working on the fact that Ulster bank have admitted their error and from that the receiver was illegally appointed and have been trespassing , maybe I am jumping the gun in respect of damages.



While I am no expert in this, I would imaging that if they illegally kept you out of your home, you would be inline for enormous damages. In fact I understand that defamation of title to be a very serious matter not to mention the distress that must have been caused.

You need a very aggressive solicitor.


----------



## Leo (8 May 2019)

For how long were you living in the UK? Long enough to be considered resident there? (Paying UK income tax?)

Did your mortgage contract have a clause about informing them in the event that you rented the property?


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

Hi Leo,

I have lived in uk since 2013 , so yes I am considered a uk resident.

The house is my only one in the Irish state and is considered my family home, Ulster bank have accepted this.

There was no known clause about renting.
But I did seek their permission to rent out the house and it was granted, I was not requested to change to a BTL.

As previously said the issue was not being able to return home in 2017 because a receiver was appointed on foot of UB mistake.

Ulster bank have accepted that they made a mistake in changing it to a BTL.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2019)

Hi Richie

Did you return home in 2017? 

When did you get your house back? 

Classifying your home as a buy to let is of no significance.  Or if you think it has, how did it affect you? 

They were perfectly entitled to sell your mortgage whether it was a home or a buy to let. 

The appointment of a Receiver appears to be an error but it's not clear how this actually affected you. They presumably collected the rent. They can fix all this financially. 


Brendan


----------



## Leo (8 May 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> The house is my only one in the Irish state and is considered my family home, Ulster bank have accepted this.



They may have done so in error. If you are not residing in the property full time, it is no longer considered a family home under the Family Home Protection Act.


----------



## TLO (8 May 2019)

Leo said:


> They may have done so in error. If you are not residing in the property full time, it is no longer considered a family home under the Family Home Protection Act.



Yes, but the CCMA defines primary residence to include “a residential property in this State which is the only residential property owned by the borrower".

More importantly, it is likely that the loan agreement between the OP and Ulster Bank did not contain provision for the appointment of a receiver.  So LG Asset should not have appointed one, and Mazars should not have accepted the appointment.  A hungry legal team will have a field day with this case.


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

Thanks for all your feedback.

Maybe I am confusing things

Basically due to the UB error are receiver was called in when they were not entitled too and hence have been trespassing.

UB asking for confirmation from my solicitor that it was my only home in the state and my family home, my solicitor confirmed this too them, they then changed the status back to a PDH.
UB were aware I was moving abroad for work and the fact I moved out temporarily does not change the status of the home.

I had planned on moving home in 2017 but due to the appointment of the receiver I was not able to, that too me is my biggest issue and also the fact that ccma was not applied .

It seems pretty clear the receiver should not of been appointed and have been trespassing that is why I want to seek damages .

Damage for: stress, trespassing,financal  loss and not being able to return home with my family as I would  of been trespassing in my own home.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Did you return home in 2017?



I take it you did not return home?   

If you had returned home and rented, you might have a stronger case.  But it would be hard to prove that you would have returned in 2017 but couldn't because 



Richie1974 said:


> a receiver was illegally appointed to my home from Jan 2018 until now


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2019)

What  was your financial situation when the Receiver was appointed? 

Were you actually paying anything? 

Usually if a lender gets the rent, they don't appoint a Receiver.

Brendan


----------



## RedOnion (8 May 2019)

Richie,

I might have misread.
Your dates suggest you wanted to move home in 2017, but receiver only appointed in 2018?


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

hi Brendan,

Yes maybe,I take your point.I was offered a good job opportunity in 2017 in Dublin but felt renting would be too costly.

But in saying that trespassing is still trespassing and I have been kept from returning to my family home regardless if  I was in the state or not.


Still can’t figure out if I have a strong case, I don’t fancy paying out more legal fees with a poor outcome


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

Hi Red.

Sorry must of been a typo

Receiver was appointed in jan 2017 to present.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> What was your financial situation when the Receiver was appointed?
> 
> Were you actually paying anything?
> 
> Usually if a lender gets the rent, they don't appoint a Receiver.



As you didn't answer, I assume that you were collecting the rent and not paying anything over to the lender. 

They will argue that they would have sought an order for possession, so you didn't lose out.

If you were paying nothing, then you were the author of your own misfortune.  Their wrongdoing is small compared to yours.

Brendan


----------



## RedOnion (8 May 2019)

Ok, can you set out a clear timeline of what happened and when?

Notified UB you were temporarily moving out of house: 2013?
Were you making mortgage payments after that?
Was there any meaningful engagement with bank prior to loan being sold?
Loan sold?
Receiver appointed? By bank or purchaser?
At some point you offered to repay full arrears?



Richie1974 said:


> the fact I moved out temporarily does not change the status of the home.


It does for some legislation, but not for CCMA. However, it's critical that you were not deemed non cooperating.

Break it down:
1.Was CCMA correctly applied? Did you engage with the bank?
2. Could a receiver be legally appointed, based on your contract?



Richie1974 said:


> confirmation from my solicitor that it was...my family home


I'm not entirely sure that it was your family home once you were no longer ordinarily resident there.


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

Hi Brendan,

I was paying rent on to lender but there was still long term arrears on the debt.
When the debt was sold on I managed to raise enough to pay off the arrears, but they demanded the full debt.

I had a PIP who was try to Negotiate a settlement but still sent it to the receiver before agreement could be reached.

I am in no way trying to deflect from my errors which lead to this, all I wanted was due process.

As was said to me before if there was a repossession order I would of had the chance in court to show I was able to pay off arrears and that the loan was sustainable.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> I don’t fancy paying out more legal fees with a poor outcome



Hi Richie 

You should at first complain to whoever appointed the Receiver.  Make the complaint in writing and set out your loss and your request for compensation.

If they refuse or make you an inadequate offer, then make a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman.  That will be quicker and it won't cost you anything. 

They will also attempt to mediate the dispute so there is a good chance that the lender will make a reasonable offer. 

Brendan


----------



## Richie1974 (8 May 2019)

Hi Red.

Just one or two points for now and I will get back to you with timeline.

1-I am not sure if they classed myself as not engaging. But in the letter they wrote to LG Asset they said I should  now fall within CCMA.

2- there is nothing in my contract that says a receiver can be appointed


----------



## cremeegg (11 May 2019)

I can usually see both sides to an argument, but not here.

UB appointed a receiver to his home without any legal basis for doing so. This seems to have been admitted by UB.

OP get a really nasty lawyer and take hundreds of thousands off them.

Brendan, if someone, without legal authority put you out of your home, doubt you would be saying.



Brendan Burgess said:


> They were perfectly entitled to sell your mortgage whether it was a home or a buy to let.
> 
> The appointment of a Receiver appears to be an error but it's not clear how this actually affected you.



I do understand that the OP was living in England when the receiver took his property, but that does not change the fact that legally he was put out of his home.


----------



## Dazzler123 (12 May 2019)

There is a power to appoint a receiver presuming the mortgage is a pre-2009 mortgage.  All of the main bank mortgages contain provisions to that effect.  

You are not going to get loads of compo for this as you have not suffered any loss. The property was being rented so youd have had to get the tenants out first.  If you made no effort to do so, then you cannot really claim you would have returned to the house but for the receiver.


----------



## Richie1974 (12 May 2019)

Dazzler, Correct me if I am wrong. But when the receiver was appointed it’s pretty much game over, the advice I was given is that if I attempted to remove tenants , take the rent, move back in I could easily of found myself in court.to move back home I had to challenge the appointment of the receiver, which was done but they took no notice.
As for pre 2009 power to appoint a receiver to PDH May be something I need to look more into.


----------



## Richie1974 (12 May 2019)

Maybe I don’t understand this correctly, is it the case that a receiver can be appointed for pre 2009 contracts even if the power to appoint is not in the contract,but the demand for debt had to be called in pre 2009 too ?
Would Vulture funds not be appointing receivers to all 2009 loans if it could to save them going to court


----------



## TLO (13 May 2019)

Dazzler123 said:


> There is a power to appoint a receiver presuming the mortgage is a pre-2009 mortgage. All of the main bank mortgages contain provisions to that effect.



Never heard of this before.  The power to appoint a receiver only applies to properties that were bought to let.  And the power to appoint has to be mentioned in the loan agreement. 

As an aside, an invalidly appointed receiver is a bit like a trespasser or a squatter.  You can try and persuade them to move on.  But if they don't then you need a court order to force them out.


----------



## Dazzler123 (14 May 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> Dazzler, Correct me if I am wrong. But when the receiver was appointed it’s pretty much game over, the advice I was given is that if I attempted to remove tenants , take the rent, move back in I could easily of found myself in court.to move back home I had to challenge the appointment of the receiver, which was done but they took no notice.
> As for pre 2009 power to appoint a receiver to PDH May be something I need to look more into.



The appointment of the receiver could have been challenged by way of declaratory relief in the courts.

Had you interfered with the receiver in carrying out their duties it is likely that you would have faced an injunction in the high court.


----------



## Dazzler123 (14 May 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> Maybe I don’t understand this correctly, is it the case that a receiver can be appointed for pre 2009 contracts even if the power to appoint is not in the contract,but the demand for debt had to be called in pre 2009 too ?
> Would Vulture funds not be appointing receivers to all 2009 loans if it could to save them going to court



The power to appoint a receiver is standard in all the major banks mortgage documentation for years. My reference to pre 2009 refers to the 2009 land and conveyancing act which effectively killed receiverships for post 2009 homeloan mortgages.


----------



## Dazzler123 (14 May 2019)

TLO said:


> Never heard of this before.  The power to appoint a receiver only applies to properties that were bought to let.  And the power to appoint has to be mentioned in the loan agreement.



Power to appoint a receiver is not only confined to buy to lets. It applies to pdh's too but most banks will get an order for possesion for a pdh. If its vacant or the borrower is abroad, some will appoint a receiver or agent. 

Power to appoint has to be in the mortgage as opposed to the loan agreement.


----------



## Richie1974 (10 Sep 2019)

Just got news that the illegally appointed receiver is to be stood down.
UB admittedly in April that  the receiver should not have been appointed and informed Asset  Services in April ,only now have Asset Services actually done something about  it despite UB writing to them months ago.
So good news at last.


----------



## cremeegg (10 Sep 2019)

Congratulations. 

Have you had any discussions about compensation. I still recommend an aggressive solicitor.

Was the receiver collecting rent while in place.


----------



## Richie1974 (10 Sep 2019)

Thank you.Its a huge relief knowing I can move home again when I chose 

I had written to UB for compensation and they replied with an insulting amount.
I have a  professional who will be lodging a complaint with the FSPO.

I will also be seeking advice with regards to Asset Services , as in my opinion they knowingly kept an illegal receiver in place.
If need be I will bring them to the FSPO (subject to advice) unless they compensate me in debt relief .


----------



## Richie1974 (10 Sep 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> Thank you.Its a huge relief knowing I can move home again when I chose
> 
> I had written to UB for compensation and they replied with an insulting amount.
> I have a  professional who will be lodging a complaint with the FSPO.
> ...


And yes receiver was collecting rent


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Sep 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The appointment of a Receiver appears to be an error but it's not clear how this actually affected you. They presumably collected the rent. They can fix all this financially.





Richie1974 said:


> I had planned on moving home in 2017 but due to the appointment of the receiver I was not able to, that too me is my biggest issue and also the fact that ccma was not applied .



Hi Richie

This is a difficult one.  But perfect for the Ombudsman.  

The financial aspects can all be put right in that you will receive a revised statement with the correct balance and any legal charges should be removed. 

So your position today will be the same as it would otherwise have been. 

Apart from the fact that you could have come home in 2017  and that you have had a huge amount of worry and stress. 

I would say that Link would probably be happy to be rid of this problem.  Are you in negative equity?  Are you in a position to refinance the mortgage?  Is it a tracker? 

I don't think that they will write down the debt while you retain ownership.  They might though. 

But the main problem lies with Ulster and any award of compensation will be paid by them.

Brendan


----------



## Dazzler123 (10 Sep 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> Thank you.Its a huge relief knowing I can move home again when I chose
> 
> I had written to UB for compensation and they replied with an insulting amount.
> I have a  professional who will be lodging a complaint with the FSPO.
> ...



Very surprised at that. There must be an issue with the mortgage wording so. 

Yhere is nothing wrong in principle with appointing a receiver to a PDH where the mortgage is pre 2009 and the mortgage is appropriately worded.


----------



## Richie1974 (10 Sep 2019)

Hi Brendan,

Thanks for your reply.
The loan is not in negative equity and it is a tracker.
I can pay off the arrears , am I correct if I pay off the arrears and full monthly payments there  is very little they can do to take house of me?

With regards to refinancing I think I would struggle even though the loan is sustainable.
I want to hold onto house if possible.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Sep 2019)

Richie1974 said:


> if I pay off the arrears and full monthly payments there is very little they can do to take house of me?



In theory, they could seek an order for possession in the courts, but the courts would be very unlikely to grant them one, especially after all that messing. 

I do think that if you can pay off arrears, you should do so. The sooner you do, the sooner your credit record starts repairing. 

Brendan


----------

