UnderClass
Registered User
- Messages
- 8
Don't all banks operate like this- i.e. they 'pool' accounts and take an overall view of all borrowings? They call in loan 1, and if it is not cleared this then allows them to declare default and trigger calling in loans 2,3,4 & 5 as well. If they are not allowed to do this, I'd love to see something in writing so that I could try to challenge them. However I'm not very hopeful about such a challenge as I could see huge costs arising with great uncertainty about getting anywhere.Are the mortgages tied to each other? If only one went into arrears how can they call the others in as well? This seems heavy-handed if there are no arrears on the other loans.
Take them on as a lay litigant. I believe there is a group established that informally provides support to that end. Can't recall the details of it off the top of my head right now. By all accounts, there are numerous people representing themselves in property/loans/mortgage related cases right now.People in my position simply dont have the wherewithal to match the Banks in legal challenges as they could mount a legal 'war of attrition' that would quickly wipe out the personal borrower through legal fees, and they know that unfortunately.
Take them on as a lay litigant. I believe there is a group established that informally provides support to that end. Can't recall the details of it off the top of my head right now. By all accounts, there are numerous people representing themselves in property/loans/mortgage related cases right now.
The sarcasm isn't lost on me. If these were 'liberated and enlightened times', then there would be substantive resources made available by the state to lay litigants.Thanks for that. And indeed, its hopeful that there are avenues for such self- representation in these greatly liberated and enlightened times. .
Fair enough but my view would be given the scenario you describe, what have you got to lose by trying. As it stands, you are defeated.One hopes that the sentiments "That every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client", highlighted by Henry Kett in 1814 as lazy thinking that would become simply accepted by Members of the Judiciary no longer applies in 2014.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?