You raise a lot of points here!(posted 8499 days ago)Your 'leading'point is the Money Judgement Order, and there is some stuff on this further down the Q&A threads and also on the main HRP site.
The person who has brought the subject of Money Judgements out in the open is Carol Riley whose telephone number is listed under 'Who helps' (I think) as the National Association of Mortgage Victims. She has kindly sent me an article and I could scan and email this to you if you contact me privately.
I think it is worth asking the lender if it has a MJO. The lender is, I believe, under an obligation to tell you on what it is basing its claim. If they don't have a MJO, then I think it needs to base its claim on the mortgage deed and conditions, especially after six years from repo or default leading to repo. (Again, see this site, under Repossession and one of last summer's Newsletters.) I cannot see that it matters whether or not the repo is voluntary or court ordered - the same laws and codes (which will include Civil Procedure Rules) will presumably still apply.
My understanding is that MJO's were rarely obtained for voluntary repossessions, by the way. But please correct me, anyone, if you know differently.
Filling in an I&E form - I think these are an appalling invasion of privacy, and many people fill one in without being informed by the lender (or the lenders' lawyers) of the implications - that is, the implications according to the lender. For example, many lenders appear to claim that doing so (and making a payment) constitutes an admission of liability. But I understand from another reader of this site that this might not necessarily be so. One can 'resile' (i.e. withdraw) an admission of liability (Gale v Superdrug 1996 CA) under certain circumstances, I have been told.
But I really am just an amateur, OK? No training, no expertise. These are just some thoughts.