B. Soc. Ombudsman, duty of care - further comments anyone?

I have just read Q&A posting re. House Price/ valuation (Feb 04, 2001)and I am appalled at the figure invloved in the GROSS underselling of Eleanor Scott's flat. The issue of underselling is fundamental to cases of re-possession and creates a 'shortfall' in a major number of cases. If the re-po'd properties were marketed in a fair and d=effective way by the lenders, who should be legally bound to do really obtain 'the best price reasonably available'(and provide proof of those actions, the matter of shortfall would not arise in many, many cases.

My own particular grievance does not involve 'shortfall'but nevertheless \I WAS left penniless as well as homeless.(A state of affairs well known to many visitors to this site!) It is caused by the cavalier attitude of the lenders which in turn conveys a message to the [public that because we hit a bad patch in our lives we are fair game and deserve to be robbed.

Hence my question, at a previous re. the Ombudsman. It was the Ombudsman who in effect allowed the Cheltenham & Gloucester B. Soc to avoid providing the data information relating to marketing especially that I had requested.

Any comments or advice anyone ? All contributions gratefully received.

Joy.

[ Previous | Next ]