This is probably the same case, but jus in case, it can be viewed from the bottom of the Reposession > Your Legal Rights page. This case is about an overdraft that was secured by a mortgage, as I recall, and was therfore purely for money. The arguement was not upheld because the originating document was not a mortgage, but an overdraft agreement. Lenders are clearly claiming monies owed based upon a mortgage (the originating document being the mortgage deed) and, therfore, I contend that the arguement used by Nat West in this case would not apply to lenders chasing shortfalls. I would suggest that RSC Order 88 does very much apply, is not purely for repossesion proceedings and they (the lenders) would have a very hard time wriggling out of it if the borrower was steadfast and resolute.(posted 8459 days ago)Tim