Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

[cul8rm8e]

Lets say you and your solicitor met with a lender (property development loans) at their solicitors office to try and resolve an issue of the loan whereby the lender did not want to provide any more money.

Now at this meeting the lender and backed up by his solicitor made it clear that the lender was not going to release the next stage of the loan and if he doesnt receive repayment of the loan he did provide along with fees etc , ( the loan was to be in two parts) they would look to reposess the land and sell it to get his money back. Anyway, things didnt work out and from this point there was approx one month until the term of the loan expired and when he would start reposession to get his intitial payment back.

The scenario:

A, The lender with assistance from their Solicitor had transferred ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS of the loan within days of providing the first part of the loan to you,(the loan was legally assigned to another for the cost of the first payment he provided, the second payment he never provided and ALL legal costs, fees admin, etc to sum of exactly what you were liable to pay him back should everything have gone smoothly till the end) therefore he held NO TITLE OR RIGHTS at the time of having the meeting and supposedly trying to resolve an issue.

If an Expert witness has been employed which you intend to use in court action and it confirms that they did not in fact have any rights to hold that meeting and discuss a scenario that they both assisted in assigning all Title and Rights to another person. At the time of the meeting nobody was aware what the lender and their solicitor were up to. After the term of the short contract expired the solicitor and the lender then done all necessary work to buy back the rights and title to the loan so that they could then call up the money owed to him ( the initial first part of the loan and all his fees, interest, etc.)


My question is: If anything, what did both the Lender and the Solicitor do wrong and if proved how serious is it

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

I am gathering that my explaining of the situation is not good or what the solicitor has done is really bad and this aint the best place to have a grievance against a solicitor

[des8]

Re: Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

Well tbh, I found it difficult to follow your post.
I think you arranged a development loan that was to be paid in two stages.
After the first short term tranche had been paid, and the first repayment instalment paid the loan was assigned to a third party.
Shortly before the next tranche was to be paid the lender indicated the second tranche would not be paid.
The lender then repurchased the original loan and is (is about to?) take action to enforce repayment of the original short term first tranche.
In the costs are included charges covering costs incurred by the lender whilst the loan was assigned to the third party, and it is to these that you are objecting.

Is this correct?

PS Don't think anyone here would worry about grievances against a solicitormashappy:

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

thanks.

Yes thats about right, after i read the post i was surprised myself as to how muddled it sounds

Anyway, what i am objecting to was all the costs during back and forth between both solicitors during this time but even more important is the fact of the horrendous stress put under by the solicitor and the lender with their threatening to repossess and also making it clear in their view it was the borrower at fault ( I can assure everyone it wasnt) while they had in fact assigned the whole thing to someone who lives outside the UK and had no right to even have these debates or the meeting that costs not only our solicitor fees but fees they are claiming also.

it was also the fact that the lenders solicitor accepted an offer in writing on behalf of her client, an offer that we tried to put together while stressed, while neither of them had any right to deal with it never mind accept ( but it was not known they assigned it over at the time )

In all honesty, the lender will get whats coming to him in court, its the solicitor i am gunning for.

Well tbh, I found it difficult to follow your post.
I think you arranged a development loan that was to be paid in two stages.
After the first short term tranche had been paid, and the first repayment instalment paid the loan was assigned to a third party.
Shortly before the next tranche was to be paid the lender indicated the second tranche would not be paid.
The lender then repurchased the original loan and is (is about to?) take action to enforce repayment of the original short term first tranche.
In the costs are included charges covering costs incurred by the lender whilst the loan was assigned to the third party, and it is to these that you are objecting.

Is this correct?

PS Don't think anyone here would worry about grievances against a solicitormashappy:

[des8]

Re: Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

Whilst the loan was assigned to the third party, how do you know whether or not that third party had authorised the lender and solicitor to negotiate on their behalf without disclosing that fact?

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Did the Solicitors have any rights to threaten action

I know that due to the employment of an expert witness (over 40 years in the industry with more letters after his name than i have in my name) who will stand in court to the fact that the Assignment was a Legal Assignment that transferred all benefits and rights to the other assignee and legally the lender was obliged to Notify the borrower that basically the debt was now with another company/individual, which they hid from the borrower. if it was an Equity assignment then the lender was not obligated to notify the borrower, but again, the lenders solicitor has stated in writing it was in fact a Legal Assignment.

The expert witness confirmed what i have been looking for some time.

Below from the Loan Market Association

6. 2. 2 Legal Assignment: Assignment involves the transfer of rights, but not
obligations. For a legal assignment, s. 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925
provides that the assignment must be:
• absolute (i. e. the whole of the debt outstanding to the existing lender);
• in writing and signed by the existing lender; and
• notified in writing to the borrower.

If any element of this requirement is missing, the assignment is likely to be
equitable (see 6. 2. 3 Equitable Assignment).

In the context of the syndicated loan, a legal assignment will transfer all of the
existing lender' s rights under the Loan Agreement (including the right to sue
the borrower and the right to discharge the assigned debt)to the new lender.

The obligation of the existing lender to provide funds to the borrower cannot
be transferred by legal assignment and thus remains with the existing lender.

The new lender pays the existing lender any funds due under the loan and the
existing lender sends those funds on to the Agent, who then passes such funds
on to the borrower.

The lender was paid in full as if he had provided all funds to borrower, both first and second payment plus all fees and interest. he did not pass the second part of the loan onto the borrower even though he had no right to hold it!

Effectively a security was over the property for the sum of £40k and the original lender wanted his first part of the loan he provided and the fees,interest. so on that basis the borrow got approx 10k then at the same time was sitting on a security plus outstanding loan amount of approx £58k mostly to someone he/she didnt even know about. if the lender then went into Liquidation or Administration the new lender would still have had a security for his full loan amount and the lender would have been well of, hand out £10k get £40 back, not a bad return and thats while the borrower receives a calling up notice for £40k from this strange guy who he/she hasnt got a clue who he is but would obviously hold the correct security to reclaim it.

i wonder where the original lender would be at this point? having a nice meal and drink spending his earnings?


????