Damages for illegal appointment of receiver

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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Congratulations.

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

Was the receiver collecting rent while in place.
 
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 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.

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 .
Click to expand...
And yes receiver was collecting rent
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Richie1974 said:
if I pay off the arrears and full monthly payments there is very little they can do to take house of me?
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top