After several attempts to get valuation evidence etc. Eversheds havecome back with a certificate from the estate agents, from a branch manager, saying that the selling price 21000 was the bestpricelikely to be achieved and that the property hes been fully and freely exposed to the marketplace. Also a certificate from the valuers that the 21000 was best price achieved based on the fully and freely exposed on the marketplace line - strangely familiar?

Also the "evidence" of marketing - a page from a free paper that has lots of expensive properties (some of the same type) and my half priced home. Indeed the proof of mis-sale seems to be there in front of me, but does anyone know how to respond to this?

As for the financial statement I have requested - as there seems to be an exaggeration in pre repo sums, the Nationwide refuse to issue any info, I am expected to take their "We sold the property for X, payed the agents Y, therefore you owe Z" statement unless I can prove otherwise.

I am very tempted to put forward an offer to get them off my back.

I am thankfull for the support you have given - although sometimes it takes a while for me to get back to you, as I am ill quite often.

Regards

Rob

-- rob dodd (robdodd2@dialstart.net), October 26, 2000

Answers

Rob,

Very interested in what you say about the branch manager's opinion and the valuer's opinion being identical. This may be a pattern across the board, i.e. a common repo experience. I've seen it a few times now.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), November 25, 2000.

This is maybe because, on looking up the companies web details, they are both OWNED by the same parent company. Maybe this also has something to do with the 5.6 % fees charged by the Estate Agents.

However the Nationwide has waived the fee as a gesture of "good will" which releases them from the burden of an explanation, but also enables them to use the best price certificates established as part of the special arrangement. Who can explain to me that a sole agent can get away with charging a building society in excess of 5 per cent without there being a value added service attached?

-- rob dodd ((robdodd2@dialstart.net)), November 26, 2000.

Hi Rob,

I believe it's very crafty of them to waive the Estate Agents fees as a gesture of "Good Will" because I'm sure they don't want the exorbitant fee questioned. That does not mean that you can't question the whole issue of the valuation and marketing of the property.

If there is one issue that shows just how arrogant lenders can be it's this one. They know only too well that the public perception of repossession is that properties are sold off quickly at rock-bottom prices! Why do the public have that perception despite the lenders stating publicly that it isn't the case? Because all the evidence points to it - thats why!

In my case with the Halifax I believe I have the documentation to prove that they deliberately undervalued and under-marketed the property. Do they care? It seems not! The Halifax's CEO even had the gall to state publicly in the Sun newspaper that his number one tip is; "If things aren't right, say so. It is foolish to pretend all is perfect when it isn't". Yet when I gave him evidence that many things weren't right with actions that the Halifax had taken in my case, what did he do? He avoided giving answers to my specific questions by sending me a standard letter of "deadlock" from his Customer Relations department stating that they now believed that all my concerns had been addressed!

Rob, "Skipton Building Society -v- Stott" it now means that your repossessed property should have been marketed by the Estate Agents in the same way that they market other properties they handle. If they had done so then a normal percentage fee would have been due. Less of course the reduction for having been granted "Sole Agency". The property should also have benefited from being marketed as "Vacant Possession". This is even stated as being a known benefit towards any sale in my Mortage Conditions from the Halifax!! Yet did they advertise it as such? Guess - you got it - NO!

Continue to INSIST that you receive copies of the valuations that were carried out AND copies of the actual (dated) sales particulars for the property that were used by the Estate Agents.

We all know the stress that we are put through by the lenders actions. I believe that until it is publicised more they will continue in the same arrogant way. I would suggest that you keep records of your illnesses. Try to keep cheerful but keep fighting!

Regards, Tony.

-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), November 26, 2000.

Rob, if the two companies are owned by the same parent, then surely they are in breach of the "arms length" requirement for the purposes of the sale? I thought that the selling agent had to be totally independent of the Lender, so as to ensure the "fair and reasonable" price...in prevailing market conditions..etc. This is otherwise akin to allowing a vampire to run a blood bank.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), November 26, 2000.

The two companies producing best price certificates were a local estate agent and a national surveyor company both owned by the same parent company. Sorry for the confusion, but thanks for all the responses.

-- rob dodd (robdodd2@dialstart.net), November 29, 2000.