[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Eleanor Scott | Help ]

Response to Coventry chasing for shortfall what do I do next?

from Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com)
To add to the above answer, the Civil Procedures Rules (thanks to Lord Justice Woolf) dictate a new approach to litigation. They try to ensure more of a level playing field, by, for example, encouraging parties to 'put their cards on the table' well before court if even mooted. This means, wher necessary, an exchange of documents should take place. (Lenders such as Abbey are well known for their refusal to provide documentary proof of their alleged claims against ex borrowers.) The idea if to avoid delay and expense. Any party who delays can expect to have decisions over costs (very important to lenders) go against them. Crucially, 'A claimant bank will need to demonstrate that it has clearly explained its claim and has sought to establish and explore any potential defences with a view to avoiding litigation'. So if you claim a mis-sold MIG in your defence, they ought to explore this with you properly - which would presumably involve an exchange of documents - otherwise risk incurring so many costs in court that it isn't worth their while taking you to court (see elsewhere on this site). So why do lenders behave like this? Because (a) if they can bully you into coughing up they don't have to produce any paperwork and they make an easy profit; and (b) Stephen Byers, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority consciously choose to let them get away with it. So you just keep fighting, and insist on proper proof that your ex lender acted correctly, and is acting correctly. Eleanor.
(posted 8577 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]