High Court finds appointment of Receiver valid

Discussion in 'Mortgage arrears & negative equity case studies' started by Shelley5428, Dec 29, 2016.

  1. Shelley5428

    Shelley5428 New Member

    Posts:
    3
    My loan was transferred from Governor & Company of BOI to BOI (UK) Plc without my knowledge or consent. In Feb 2013 receivers were appointed. Two signatures appeared on the deed of appointment. I objected to the receivership immediately, they went ahead and changed locks, locks were changed back and then we were taken to court by alleged new mortgage owner. A 4 year High Court case followed where I claimed the receiver was appointed invalidly. it was found the the receivers appointment was valid! Facts from the case:
    1. All evidence brought into the case(Affidavits & Witnesses) were from the original lender and not BOI (Uk) Plc which is a separate legal entity.
    2. The plaintiff claimed for three and half years that the appointment was by deed then on the first day of trial said to Judge, by the way we are not relying on the appointment as a deed it was a writing under hand. I objected to this. Case went on for 4 days where I Cross examined 2 bank managers a solicitor and a receiver. Managers said they signed the appointment as a deed, receiver said he accepted it as a deed, I argued that bank could not claim at this late stage that it was a writing under hand and I used caselaw Mercury V HMRC where judge said that if it started out as a deed then it's validity must be judged on that.
    3. Bank managers contracts stated they were employees of Governor Co BOI and not the plaintiff.
    4. An authorised signature list was brought before the court as evidence to prove the two signatures were authorised. This list was clearly from GovCo BOI and was dated before the plaintiff was incorporated.
    5. 6 months after the trial, judge used court rules and allowed plaintiff to make an application to amend it's pleadings(plaintiff did not ask to amend it’s pleadings) to say appointment was by writing underhand which they did..I objected but judge allowed the application.
    7. Judgment went against me

    Judge still found that receivers were appointed validly.
     
  2. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    31,160
    Hi Shelley

    Thanks for that summary.

    Presumably this is a matter of public record? Could you provide a link to the High Court judgement.

    Brendan
     
  3. Shelley5428

    Shelley5428 New Member

    Posts:
    3
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    Hi Brendan,

    Judgement isn't finalised yet...judge asked that both parties come in on 22nd December and he gave a summary of his conclusions on that day. He then said that he would send the judgement out by email for any corrections to be made before he handed it down. He also said that I have to agree with the barrister of the plaintiff how much my final indebtedness is to the bank and that if we didn't do this he would fix the figure. He then went on to say that I should put in submissions on January 2 as to what I thought was my total indebtedness to the plaintiff which I found very strange.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
  4. Bronte

    Bronte Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    11,945
    If the judge wants a figure from you it sounds like he's going to make a judgement against you in that amount.
     
  5. Shelley5428

    Shelley5428 New Member

    Posts:
    3
    Hi Bronze,

    He has already made me aware that he is going against me on all my defence points but I found it strange to be asked to meet with counsel for the bank and agree a figure or put in a submission on what I think is my total indebtedness.
     
  6. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    31,160
    Hi Shelley

    I presume this related to a property in the Republic of Ireland and that the court case took place in the Republic?

    Brendan