Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

I have read the thread and the only thing that worries me is that the loan was a secured loan and as such the limitations period is 12 years if I have that correct

It would be 12 years if it had been a secured loan but it looks like it wasn't. It was a personal guarantee for an unsecured loan to a limited company, if I read it correctly:

Hi Sorry if this post is wrong in regard to etiquette I'm not good at this sort of thing.
I was wondering if somebody can assist please?

Long story short,Business went down in credit crunch 2008.
Had a business loan of xx thousands pounds.

Last payment was December 2007 no written communication from myself or payment from that date, subsequently house in partners name was taken by mortgage provider I was named personal guarantor on my side as unsecured loan as she put up security. ultimate borrower a ltd company we where repossessed and made homeless with young family and had no money at all. My priority was to provide for family I found new job to start again. The Bank formally demanded the loan in June 2008 and then Aug 2008 which I did not reply, they wanted to merge all the loans together and take a further security on the property that did not happen.

[nemesis45]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

I have read the thread and the only thing that worries me is that the loan was a secured loan and as such the limitations period is 12 years if I have that correct

Post #1.

" I was named as a guarantor on my side for an unsecured loan."

[trgz2005]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

It would be 12 years if it had been a secured loan but it looks like it wasn't. It was a personal guarantee for an unsecured loan to a limited company, if I read it correctly:

Morning;
just to clear up any doubt;

Borrower: my partner
Co guarantor: me
Ultimate borrower: limited company
Security: legal charge over borrowers property which secures all liabilities to the borrower to the bank of any kind including pursuant of the guarantee.
Guarantee: XX thousand pounds to borrower and myself in respect of all liabilities of ultimate borrower.

At the time I had no legal right to borrowers property I was not on the deeds. Hence I was advised allegedly that funds would not be released unless I was named as personal unsecured guarantor as there was no security for me to put up however was told not to worry as the was a great deal of equity in property in that period.
Credit crunch turned property into negative equity after re mortgage payments failed due to business going under which led to repossession hence shortfall, Hence them chasing myself
Should the claimant win it will pursue a legal charge over a property I reside in currently where I have a % share in a home start scheme.
It correspondence to me is that it used right of set off in April 2014 (they actually did it in 2012) from a personal satisfied debt to third party without my acknowledgement or consent 5 years 10 months after formal demand on ltd company and 10 months after personal separate loan paid off to third party.
They claim right of set off under powers of bank I say statue barred sections 5,29,30 limitation act 1980.

[nemesis45]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

Thank you Trgz,
The reluctance of the bank to disclose any documents and the claim that the offset was later than it was
is very suspect I think.

I hope the ICO's intervention will help in getting the full story.

I stick with my assessment on the statute barred status, this I think using the principle of the "balance of probabilities" you are correct in your belief that the debt is statute barred.

nem

[trgz2005]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

sar july 2015.jpg
@nemesis45
Sar response from Bank.
Many thanks

[nemesis45]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

sar july 2015.jpg
@nemesis45
Sar response from Bank.
Many thanks

Thank Trgz, Responding to your PM

That's as good an explanation of the scope and limitations of a SAR I've seen at anytime!
I hope there is some useful data when they comply.

nem

[jon1965]

Re: Limitaion act staute barred and right of set letter. Please help

Borrower: my partner
Co guarantor: me
Ultimate borrower: limited company
Security: legal charge over borrowers property which secures all liabilities to the borrower to the bank of any kind including pursuant of the guarantee.
Guarantee: XX thousand pounds to borrower and myself in respect of all liabilities of ultimate borrower.

Hope that helps?

I am more than happy to be concerned unnecessarily , god I hope I am but from what was written above there does seem to have been a secured element to the loan. For the amounts involved I think I would be looking for legal advice, at least initially as a loss in court would be very very expensive. The only person I am concerned about here is the OP

[trgz2005]

Re: Limitaion act staute barred and right of set letter. Please help

I am more than happy to be concerned unnecessarily , god I hope I am but from what was written above there does seem to have been a secured element to the loan. For the amounts involved I think I would be looking for legal advice, at least initially as a loss in court would be very very expensive. The only person I am concerned about here is the OP

Hi @jon1965 and thanks,
The initial "security" was lost when the property of the borrower was repossessed by the mortgage provider so the bank lost out as they were not the priority creditor.
The bank claim due to a "system error" (their words not mine) they were unable to pursue the unsecured personal guarantee which they allege is myself and admit liability on delay and admit causing undue stress on this matter for which they have tried to compensate but has never been acknowledged or cashed as one feels it could of been seen as a possible attempt to get myself to acknowledge a debt which I never have, However they have claimed " a right of set off" in 2012 on a personal defaulted separate debt repayment put it into a defaulted business account claimed it non statute barred in 2014 on the six year rule and under the powers of the bank, however this in my opinion contradicts sections 5,29,30 of 1980 limitations act this is why they are trying to take me to court and to pursue a new legal charge over a separate property from the original agreement even thought heir legal people do not have the evidence to hand that they claimed they had on POC.
Kind regards.

[jon1965]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

I see where you are coming from and it sounds complicated. This is i believe a large sum of money and should it go to court will attract considerable costs ( I have never found a cheap solicitor.) That is my concern for you however there are plenty out there that do free initial consultations. Pt2537 works for one of them and was instrumental in getting santander spanked in santander v Mayhew. Sorry on my phone so don't have a link. He has also been involved in several maybe many high profile cases. I think they also do Cfa and of course should they screw up are insured unlike anyone posting on here.
Small claims is of course a whole different ball game.


https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/santander-v-mayhew

If you enjoy reading such things
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

Oops her name is Mayhew not mayhem , autocorrect on my phone

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

I see where you are coming from and it sounds complicated. This is i believe a large sum of money and should it go to court will attract considerable costs ( I have never found a cheap solicitor.) That is my concern for you however there are plenty out there that do free initial consultations. Pt2537 works for one of them

He works for Howlett Clarke: http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/how...le/paul-tilley I'm not sure about free consultations but you can always get in touch and ask. :thumb:

and was instrumental in getting santander spanked in santander v mayhem. Sorry on my phone so don't have a link. He has also been involved in several maybe many high profile cases. I think they also do Cfa and of course should they screw up are insured unlike anyone posting on here.
Small claims is of course a whole different ball game.

Typing on phones is never easy, not to mention the autocorrect function, which has a mind of its own, as in this case, it's changed the name of the defendant to whatever the closest dictionary word sounds like. :mmph:
This is the link you may be referring to: https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.word...nder-v-mayhew/

[nemesis45]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

Hi Trzg,

I have responded to your PM.

I too hope the Australians don't make 600, chill and watch the cricket!!

nem

[pt2537]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

By the very pleadings that they have put forward, they sought to rely on the Guarantee to demand payment in 2008, so thats when limitation runs from.

The Claim is out of time, seems to me that this could be killed quick with a summary judgment application in my opinion

[nemesis45]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

By the very pleadings that they have put forward, they sought to rely on the Guarantee to demand payment in 2008, so thats when limitation runs from.

The Claim is out of time, seems to me that this could be killed quick with a summary judgment application in my opinion

Thank you PT I believe you are correct!!##nem

[trgz2005]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

By the very pleadings that they have put forward, they sought to rely on the Guarantee to demand payment in 2008, so thats when limitation runs from.

The Claim is out of time, seems to me that this could be killed quick with a summary judgment application in my opinion

Afternoon all
I was going to post my absurd letter received this morning from Legal regarding my cpr request and my defence and my fantastical response from bank after my sar request and conversation with the ICO.
But after reading above post from [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] and all the kind help from everyone here especially [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION] [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] I think I will possibly have a think have a cup of tea and decide my next move.
Maybe the end is in sight?
Kind regards all and many thanks.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court claim: Ascent Vs TRGZ2005

It would still be a good idea to post up the letter, I'd certainly like to see it! :doggieyes: