Bank sold house 60% of its value and pursuing owner for balance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Outsider,

If the bank instructed the receiver to sell your property to a property fund, ( off market sale ), then the bank are deemed to have interfered in the receiver sale ( as the receiver did not sell the property by usual means, ie, by using an estate agent or auctioneer ). As such, the bank are no longer at arms length from the receiver, whom, is now acting as an agent for the bank. In other words any claim for damages due to the professional negligence of the receiver can now be directed at the mortgagee ( bank ). See Standard Charter bank v Walker.
 
Descart
Thanks for that. I very much appreciate you taking the time.
Would the "average "solicitor be sufficiently au fait with these matters or would you recommend I go talk to one who "specialises" in this area?
And if the latter, how would you suggest I go about finding one?
 
most good solicitors should be au fait with these matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Outsider,

My advice to you would be to send off a data access request ( can get a template letter on the Data Protection Commissioner website, it will cost you 6.35 euro per request ) to both the bank in question and the receiver requesting in particular all documentation relating to the sale of the property, this would include all emails between the receiver and the bank discussing your property, this is your data, as it refers to your property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a very interesting post Dermot, I have to say you are correct in the hinds sight scenario of should have, would have , could have, but yes, when it's all happening around you and coming down the hill so fast, you really don't know which end is up. But it's always seems that folk that have none of this pressure are the ones who have difficulty understanding why a difficult situation is not handled differently. Descart has given some interesting information and I hope some take comfort from it. I'm not a fan of the won't pay parasites and God knows there plenty piggy backing the genuine cases out there, which is the reason I feel posts like yours should be hi-lighted if there is an injustice, the other reason, its not long back when I was at a funeral where another individual fell on hard times and didn't know where to turn. So again, it might be too late for your pal, but if someone benefits from the information gained here, well done in hi-lighting the issue.
 
Last edited:
Descart said:
most good solicitors should be au fait with these matters.
Click to expand...

They are? And maybe you could link us to an actual Irish court case where one succeded in taking on the receivers? I see the rich and fully legally qualified Mr. O'Donnell with all the tricks in the book, lost his house, but it hasn't been sold yet presumably, maybe he'll be taking a new case later.
 
Bronte,

I know of many complaints taken against receivers where the bank, on the advice of the receiver, has agreed to write off all residual debt after sale. ( receivers usually have an indemnity bond with the bank to protect themselves from claims of professional negligence, so in any case where they are found liable, the bank picks up the cost ). These types of cases do not get to court or are settled before any court case is at plenary stage.

The only Irish case that actually went to full hearing that I can think off that springs to mind is Merrow Ltd v Bank of Scotland. It got so much attention that William Fry called it the Foleys Bar Saga. The banks hate publicity like that, if may move the great unwashed to start challenging shoddy receiverships, which in most instances, the award for damages, the banks will have to pay
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying just the mere fact of taking a case gives one a good chance of a settlement? But if you're broke how can you hire a solicitor to take a case. On a no win no fee? Seeing as you mentioned Fry's, top notch, top price, but maybe the go to people for Dermot's friends case. Do they do no foal no fee?
 
Bronte,

I do not know what tablets you are taking but I have said nothing of the kind. I have laid out the settled law on the matter. Sticking to the topic of the thread, if a receiver sold a property at a 40% discount in an off market sale, and the property owner can prove same, then I believe as a lay litigant he would have a good chance of success in prosecuting the case himself ( as it is relatively straight forward case to prove and does not involve complicated legislation. ) It would certainly get the banks attention when they receive a summons in relation to the matter, the bank will consult their legal experts and risk assessors to see the probability of the case been successfully defended, if the odds are not with the bank, and in the case stated in the thread, they certainly are not, then they will contact the plaintiff and come to a settlement.
 
Bronte,

Being a consumer champions with over 10,000 post to this site, what do you propose Dermot's friend should do ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart said:
Bronte,

Being a consumer champions with over 10,000 post to this site, what do you propose Dermot's friend should do ?
Click to expand...

Where is the Don't like button.

Bronte has never put herself forward as a legal expert.

It is perfectly reasonable for her to asking probing questions like this without being in a position to provide solutions. There has been a great deal of value in many of her previous posts, some from her own knowledge and experience and some from asking relevant questions to tease out issues.
 
Cremeegg,

Bronte is well able to speak for herself ( Having posted over 10,000 posts. ) I asked a simple question of her. I do not understand your interjection, have you a point to make about receiverships or could it be that you are Bronte using another username ? I will await her knowledgable response so that we can tease out the issues in the thread more or maybe you could contribute to the subject matter of the thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart,

It is most obvious that Bronte and Cremeegg are one and the same user. You have given some good consumer advice to people in relation to receiverships within this Country and all you receive is snipey comments for your efforts. I do not know why Brendan Burgess allows this type of behaviour to be tolerated on his site, it should be reported.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cremeegg said:
Where is the Don't like button.

Bronte has never put herself forward as a legal expert.

It is perfectly reasonable for her to asking probing questions like this without being in a position to provide solutions. There has been a great deal of value in many of her previous posts, some from her own knowledge and experience and some from asking relevant questions to tease out issues.
Click to expand...

Apparently two posters believe you and me are one and the same ! Thanks for the valiant effort but you can see it was to no avail.
 
Bronte,

I am still awaiting your reply to my question, what do YOU think Dermots friend should do. ?
 
Descart said:
Cremeegg,

Bronte is well able to speak for herself ( Having posted over 10,000 posts. ) I asked a simple question of her. I do not understand your interjection, have you a point to make about receiverships or could it be that you are Bronte using another username ? I will await her knowledgable response so that we can tease out the issues in the thread more or maybe you could contribute to the subject matter of the thread.
Click to expand...


I was trying to tease out the issues but why bother. It's simple to throw off a receiver it appears and happens all the time and who am I to question you. As it happens I have a sibling and partner who managed to get rid of two receivers and I commentated about it on here. Said people are in war (multiple court cases) with two banks and to my utter amazement still hold the properties. And no, they don't use lawyers.

This is at least the second time you've decided that you don't like my questions, but I fail to see why. I only tried to figure out how one would succeed and I note you showed us no cases, very conveniently they were 'settled'.
 
What issues were you trying to tease out ? What would you do in Dermot's friends case ? Also what valiant effort are you talking about ? In relation to giving you an example of an Irish Court case where the receiver was removed I quoted you the case, or did you not even take the time to read my post ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart said:
What issues were you trying to tease out ? What would you do in Dermot's friends case ? Also what valiant effort are you talking about ? In relation to giving you an example of an Irish Court case where the receiver was removed I quoted you the case, or did you not even take the time to read my post ?
Click to expand...

How does the Merrow case compare to Dermots case?

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/36a33d5cddd8a6eb80257b4a0051a4da?OpenDocument

Which seems to be a case about the validity of an appointment but not about a sale that was below value.
 
Last edited:
Bronte,

If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top