All monies on clause mortgages

[tomterm8]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Personally, if a bank had done this to me, I would write it all up into a pamphlet, get out the sandwhich board, and start a demonstration in front of the local branch office of the bank. If noone came out within 2 hours, to negotiate, I would then call up the money program, watchdog and BBC news, and let them know what was happening.

personally, I suspect even the thickest bank would realise that a heap of prospective compost would start raining down on their heads, and would be quite quick to negotiate.

[Amethyst]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Lol I can see Jest doing just that, in his blonde wig with karaoke mic, and prolly ending up arrested.

[Emerald]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Have you applied for a transcript of the hearing? It will cost around £150 I beleive.
Was it JudgeHicklebottom? (or something similar, my memory is not as good as it used to be)
Which solicitor at Cobbetts is it?
Have you got your original mortgage agreement and is there an Indemnity clause in it?

[Jester]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Not so much parading outside their branch, but the first steps are being taken. Have drafted up a (very) rough letter that will be going to my MP soon. Will post it up here for comment/suggestions before I send it. But even just writing off the top of my head it has already reached 4 pages.

I need to show how the law is being abused by these Banks and in how many ways. Trying to push it to be discussed in parliament. Will also be attacking the FSA and OFT on this front, especially OFT as I believe this is something they should be addressing.

Emerald - Not had everything back from my own solicitors yet so can't post those clauses up yet. But I am aware of what you are talking about with the Indemnity Clauses as Amethyst has clued me up about them. Will need help with that part of the letter. It wasn't Hickinbottom. He is in Cardiff. Mine was Judge Jenkins as this case was heard in Swansea.

One thing is for sure, I am not taking this lying down as you are all aware.

Ame - You leave my blonde wig and karaoke singing alone. I have requests I'll have you know

[Emerald]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Sorry don't know what made me think it was Cardiff, you were in when you clearly said Swansea....
Have you ordered a transcript of the hearing?
And from the sounds of it you have got an indemnity clause, which as you have been made aware is not good news to continue to fight this, on the Unfair Terms.
So we need to find another way for you to keep your house......

[EXC]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Cheers Exc.

I've started putting together a letter to send to the FSA about this. I guess from what you are saying above that the FOS believe it is not in their hands ?

I'll hang back on completing and sending it until you have heard from the others.

I'll also post the eventual letter here before sending it so everyone can have a say on how it is worded and what should be included/excluded.

I also need to have the court papers in my hands for some of the other salient facts from the court case. I've been told that it is possible that the Judge himself may add stuff to the court papers that maybe he did not say in court.

I've e-mailed Tom the basics of your case and hopefully I'll speak to him later today to get his initial view. If he wants to know more, Scooby Doo will liaise with you to to get it to him.

[EXC]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Here are Tom's thoughts after reading the thread.

Obviously they are based on only the information here and without seeing the documentation or receiving instruction from a solicitor, he can only make some general observations.

First, unless the Judge set a different period for lodging an appeal, Jester has three weekes from the date of the judgment to lodge his appeal (Civil Procedure Rules, Part 52, rule 4. He does not need permission to appeal, unless he has already requested it at the original hearing and the judge refused permission. If he appeared in front of a district judge, he will be appealing to the resident Circuit Judge at the court at which the original hearing took place ( I assume this is close to their home). He must bring to the attention of the court staff that this is an urgent, time sensitive appeal, as he is going to be evicted from his property. He should also try to get a note of the judgment from the solicitors that represented him, or even a transcript from the court if possible.

If he does appeal the decision, he must get proper legal representation (and not just legal assistance at court). He should contact the legal services commission and explain the situation, particularly that the previous assistance he received was not satisfactory, and that it probably contributed to his case being unsuccessful. If he needs to change solicitors, he needs to do is as soon as possible. He should stress that the case raised two important points of law:

Firstly, that a prior agreement had been reached betwen himself and the mortgage company as to repayments, and that those repayments were being met. As such, the mortgage company were "estopped" from continuing their action for posession. It does not appear that the judge considered this point.

Secondly, there may an important legal principly in the point on Unfair Contract Terms (I would have to do further research to advise on this point properly).

As such, this will probably involve complex legal argument, and since it involves important issues of law with wider implications, and that in his case a failur to appeal the decision will result in the loss of his home, it follows that full legal representation should be granted.

[Jester]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Thanks Exc.

I am still awaiting the court papers (which I assume will give me the full details of how the District Judge viewed things). When I get it, I will scan and post it in here for everyone's digest.

It seems a little unfair that I only have 3 weeks to appeal such a decision as we are almost a week further on already and I have yet to receive the official court papers. I do have a note from my own solicitors but I don't agree with their assessment of the court case.

Specifically, one can clearly see the defeatist attitude they took. They are supposed to give of their best for their clients - Legal Aid or not. I feel they failed implicitly on this count.

I cannot order a court transcript as I do have the necessary £150 to obtain one (which is another point at which I see the law as not being accessible to all).

Arguing the merits of the case on Unfair Contract Terms is what I wanted to do at the original hearing. You have seen my reasoning for believing that they have contravened Unfair Contract Terms further back in this thread. I feel that this point, together with the Bank reneging on agreed payment terms, are the principle points of contention. But I was not allowed to use the arguments at court.

I appreciate that this could be a complex legal argument because I am challenging many aspects of established law. However, there are precedents on such a matter that I have received, many of which are already on this thread. My main concern from Tom's letter is his assertion that I will need legal representation. Whilst I fully agree on this, you will understand my reservations on employing Legal Aid once again as you already know that I felt badly let down by the Legal Aid solicitors I have already used. This causes me a great deal of concern as I obviously am not in a position financially to engage a solicitor of my own.

I think the only way I will access such help is through the Pro Bono route that Scooby (and Tom) allude to and this is something I will need to do with urgency.

[Amethyst]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

the court papers may well be very basic so I wouldnt hang too much on getting information from them. What are the judgement notes from the legal aid solicitors? and have you got your paperwork, mortgage agreement etc back off them yet? if not chase them. if so get them up.

[Jester]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

The note I got back from my Solicitor is as follows (names removed for obvious reasons):


On Tuesday 29th July 2008, Robert XXXXXXXXX attending upon Mrs & Mrs XXXXXXX at Swansea County Court in respect of a possession hearing. Prior to attending court, Robert XXXXXXXX spoke with the client about the case. Robert XXXXXXXXX expressed his reservations about the client's instructions, as Richard XXXXXXXXX felt that Section 36 of the Administration Of Justice Act 1970 does not apply to this case as the client entered into an 'all money' mortgage - and he should therefore have known about the terms of the mortgage. Richard XXXXXXXXX did however explain that he would do his best for the client and make the points that the client wished to make. Richard XXXXXXXXX attended upon the Solicitor representing RBS who confirmed that RBS are not prepared to negotiate a repayment proposal in this case.

Richard XXXXXXXXX and the client attended Court No. 5 before District Judge Jenkins. Following submissions by the claimant's solicitor Richard XXXXXXXXX addressed the Judge with the points prepared by the client. Following consideration the Judge ordered a warrant for possession to take place in 56 days. The claimant's money claim was adjourned generally. The balance due today was £172,718.31.

Following the hearing, Richard XXXXXXXXX spoke with the client and explained the order made by the Judge. The client understood and thanked Richard XXXXXXXXX for his help. Richard XXXXXXXXX advised the client that either himself or Richard XXXXX would be in touch with him in the near future to discuss the possibility of filing a defence to the order.


To be honest, I disagree with a lot of these notes. For one, my main bone of contention was that the terms of the mortgage contradicted the UTCCR of 1999. I also gave hime several case law examples that proved that AJA 1970 'can and does' apply to certain 'all monies' mortgages. My Solicitor was quite plainly scared stiff of the Judge and failed to present most of the defence I had prepared. He touched on AJA 1970 and also UTCCR 1999, but neither of which with any conviction. He failed to use any of the case laws I had prepared for the case, even when RBS Solicitor started quoting Habib V Tailor as his case law. My solicitor could easily have quoted Bank Of Scotland Vs Grimes as the counter -argument but he was too scared of the court to do so. I still feel that this office 'Junior' was way out of his depth at this hearing.

Am chasing up the Solicitors about getting my paperwork back. Biggest problem I have today si that I am babysitting and therefore it will be difficult to get down to retrieve them in person. That said, today's post has not arrived yet.

[Jester]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

I have now had the Court Papers.


ON THE 29 July 2008, Deputy District Judge A T Jenkins

sitting at Swansea County Court, Swansea Civil Justice Centre, Caravella House, Quay West, Quay Parade, Swansea, SA1 1SP

heard the Solicitor for the Claimant and the Defendant in person

and the court orders that

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 'my address' on or before 23 September 2008

2. Money Claim adjourned generally.




The 23rd of September is exactly two days after my 45th Birthday, and one day before my son's 12th Birthday.

Happy Birthday Jester and Jester Junior from the so-called unbiased British Justice system !!

[Amethyst]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

- and he should therefore have known about the terms of the mortgage.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

did you understand what Tom said about Estoppel ? Think thats a major bit if the UTCCR argument fails.

[Jester]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

did you understand what Tom said about Estoppel ? Think thats a major bit if the UTCCR argument fails.
[/i]

Actually, No I don't. I had assumed it was a typo to be perfectly honest !!

Anyway, have just drafted the following letter to go to my local MP - Sian James.

I need help in identifying the common mortgages that have the 'all-monies' clause, and also in explaining about the Indemnity Clause that banks insert into Mortgage T&C's so that they can 'abuse British Law' and discourage people from sueing or taking any other sort of legal action against them.

I have to assume that Sian James MP is not a Lawyer and there the reason the letter is so long is because I need to paint the picture to here of what is going wrong in the Law. The aim of this is to get it a lot of publicity by being raised in the HoC or even pushed toward the Bank of England and/or the FSA to see what they know about it and why they are not protecting the consumer (which is what they are supposed to be about.

This letter is far from finished but I need the help of everyone to fill in the parts where I don't have the knowledge to explain (i.e. Indemnity Clause).

As always, suggestions are welcome. Also, bear in mind that the letter below will invariably repeat many points already made in other letters and posts on this thread.



To: The Rt Hon. Sian James MP, Swansea East

Dear Sian,

You may or may not recall your dealings with me earlier this year in relation to problems I have had with the DWP, however you did forward my complaint to the Secretary Of State for DWP – John Hutton. I did receive a reply from him that I did not agree with and fully intended to reply to him through. However, due to other pressing needs, I did not get around to it.

However, I now require your urgent assistance on a matter which has much wider implications in the execution of British Law.

On Tues, 29th July 2008, at Swansea County Court, District Judge Jenkins granted the Royal Bank Of Scotland Group a repossession order against my property. I don’t agree on that decision and plan to appeal against it on a number of grounds, the facts of which I will go into later in this communication.

For your information, the facts that led to the repossession order are as follows:

In August 2007, I found myself in the unfortunate position of being unemployed. Within two months of this occurring, I inevitably started to struggle with my mortgage payments to First Active (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group). But I did manage to keep the mortgage payments pretty much up to date. However, in March this year, I almost went three months behind on my payment schedule. At this point, First Active ceased dealing with my mortgage account and passed my account over to RBS Collections Services. RBS Collections Services were found to be downright rude and aggressive to both my wife and I when we called to make payments or explain why we were late with a payment.

When I knew that the DWP were about to start making contributions to the interest-only part of the payments, I asked RBS Collections Services if the bank would be prepared to accept my making interest-only payments for a short period of time. They were extremely resistant to this. The DWP payments toward my mortgage would not cover the total necessary to cover interest-only payments, but that I assured RBS Collections that I would make that amount up from my own pocket despite it being a sum that I could not really afford. Eventually, I finally managed to get RBS Collections to agree to my proposal. However, they would only accept my payment offer for July, August and September. After this period I would have to come back with acceptable plans for clearing the arrears. I agreed to this, but also insisted that they put it all in writing.

Approx. 10 days later I received confirmation of our agreement in writing.

Two days after receiving the written agreement, both my wife and I were served with County Court Papers by RBS (through their solicitors - Cobbetts).

The court papers themselves had the biggest pack of lies on them, claiming that 'Letters of demand and correspondence sent to the Defendants have failed to produce a satisfactory response', and 'No current and/or relevant information is known about the Defendant's Circumstances'.


Bearing in mind what you have just read above, it should be obvious that I had kept them up to date with everything. I even had a written agreement of acceptance of my offer of reduced repayment terms.

At Swansea County Court on 29th July 2008, I was told by the RBS solicitor that he had been instructed by his client to seek total repossession and accept nothing less. This means that the written agreement I had received from RBS Collections was not worth the paper it was written on.

The District Judge at Swansea County Court, granted a repossession order to RBS in a hearing that lasted just 3 minutes. He was not at all interested in hearing any arguments from my side.

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked the banks to be fair and lenient in their dealings with customers facing difficulties with their mortgage payments in the current climate, I feel that RBS failed completely in this respect.

Despite having made more than 1200 applications for work in the 11 months I have been unemployed, I have still to secure any employment. Despite this, I have kept up my mortgage payments to the best of my ability. At the time of the court hearing, I was but ONE MONTH in arrears on my mortgage payments.

If THAT is what RBS call 'dealing quickly and sympathetically with things that go wrong and consider all cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively', then I suggest they are taught the English language again.

Of course, neither did it help that the Judge had already made up his mind before entering court, but that is another matter altogether.

This now brings us to the point of where the law in the UK is breaking down and why it gives the big financial institutions almost carte blanche to do whatever they like.

The reason that RBS were able to seek repossession of my house in this way is due to a little known clause in my mortgage called the ‘all-monies’ clause.

So what is the ‘all-monies’ clause ?

'ALL MONIES' and 'ALL OBLIGATIONS'
In general the borrower will be liable to repay the principal sum borrowed together with interest. But in some mortgage or charge agreements the lender inserts an 'all monies' clause; sometimes this is referred to as an 'all moneys' clause. This clause seeks to cause the security to cover not merely the principal sum and interest, but also any other amounts which the court will allow the mortgagee to add into the principal.

Thus an 'all monies' clause expands the sum due by the mortgagor to the mortgagee by adding into the principal any money expended by the mortgagee in relation to the mortgage. In most cases, the borrower will have no control over this expenditure by the mortgagee and often will not know it has happened, or is possible. The purpose of this clause is described:
From the commercial viewpoint, ... to provide protection to a mortgagee in respect of all moneys which the mortgagee has paid, or becomes liable to pay, for or on account of the mortgagor. Smith v ANZ Banking Group [1995] CA 40392/95.

Clearly it is a clause for the benefit of the mortgagee.


The mortgagor might be faced with paying sums which he considers are inappropriate to be included in the amount owing. He will then have to approach a court to decide the matter. Courts are not unified on the effect of such clauses. Some courts say that if the mortgage is between commercial parties there is no need for the court to intervene because these parties are of equal bargaining power. This means the court interprets the words in their ordinary meaning without considering questions of 'fairness, unequal bargaining power or sympathy for the borrowers' vulnerability': Rudd and Son Ltd: Re Fosters and Rudd Limited [1986] 2 BCC 98.


The other interpretation is often used where the mortgagor is not a commercial entity. It maintains that the clause should be 'read down' to cover only those sums which would ordinarily be in the mind of the mortgagor as part of the mortgage debt. Thus the intention of the parties is relevant in considering the operation of the clause. If the court finds that the mortgage was to cover only a pre-existing debt created at the time of the mortgage, then no other sums will be included in the debt.


The 'all obligations' clause is much broader because it refers not only to adding sums to the principal sum, but also to adding other obligations. For example, the lender has not secured the debt by a mortgage or charge. The borrower owes money to a third party who has secured the debt by a mortgage over the borrower's land. The lender can buy the third party's mortgage, add the unsecured debt to the amount owing under the mortgage, and combine the two to expand the amount due but more importantly to give himself a secured interest.

Money Net go further by stating the following:

HOMEOWNERS RISK PROPERTY WITH MORTGAGE LENDER’S UNSECURED LOANS – CHECK FOR ‘ALL MONIES CHARGE’ BEFORE SIGNING, WARNS MONEYNET.CO.UK

• Little known ‘All Monies Charge’ locks mortgage to further borrowing
• Read small print before agreeing to additional unsecured loan or overdraft with mortgage lender
• Ask lender to remove clause – or look elsewhere for funds

A LITTLE known clause in some major lenders’ mortgage agreements could lead to homeowners losing their property should they default on any additional borrowing, warns personal finance data comparison site Moneynet.co.uk.
Far from being an unsecured loan, further borrowing or an overdraft with their mortgage lender could in fact be secured against their property if the original mortgage agreement included an ‘All Monies Charge’ clause.
“It’s shocking that borrowers who believe their additional borrowing is safely separated from their mortgage are actually agreeing to risk the security of their home – something many people would never consider doing,” says Moneynet.co.uk chief executive Richard Brown.
The ‘All Monies Charge’ clause in the mortgage agreement documents issued by some lenders means the lender secures all debt against the mortgaged property, including any additional borrowing such as personal loans or overdrafts. This means they are entitled to repossess the property should the borrower default.
“People may think better the devil they know when deciding which lender to choose for an unsecured loan – but unless they read all the small print they could be unaware that they are to all intents and purposes signing up for a secured loan rather than unsecured,” he says.
In a year which could be a challenge to many homeowners as the economy faces turbulent times, awareness of this silent but deadly clause could make the difference between losing and keeping their homes.
“Anyone in the process of taking out a mortgage should ask their solicitor to find out if the lender applies an ‘All Monies Charge’,” adds Brown. “If they do, it’s worth asking the lender to remove the offending clause.”
Mark Beaton, Head of Residential Conveyancing and a partner with East Anglian firm Ashton Graham, said: "This issue is not always investigated by a borrower and can come as a surprise at a later date. I would therefore advise clients to raise the question with their mortgage broker or potential mortgage company at an early stage."
Brown concludes: “If the lender refuses to remove the clause I would recommend finding a lender that does not include this exacting requirement. If this isn’t feasible, at least borrowers will know that any additional borrowing must be sourced elsewhere in order to protect the security of their home.”
* BBA/BSA data, April 2007

In addition, taken from a Property Investor website

The most effective property investors always protect the down side before considering the upside. They protect their key assets – especially their jewel in the crown, the family home.
Yet, for most property investors, even seasoned investors, this remains the single most neglected, but most important rule of all.
Consider how most property investors get started. They decide to become a property investor; often after listening to their friends who rode the last property boom.
So, they call their local bank manager who arranged his home loan to find out how much they can borrow.
“No problem,” their bank manager says, “and don’t worry about the deposits or costs, we’ll lend you enough to cover both..”
“Wow!” they think this is great. “Let’s get started.”
Unwittingly, the new investor is about to commit the cardinal sin of investment, a sin they will continue to commit time and time again.
So, what has the investor, who has so enthusiastically set on this journey to wealth, done that is so wrong.
In bank jargon, it’s known as the All Monies Mortgage Clause (AMMC).
The AMMC is menacingly insidious and hangs over the investor’s head, usually until the worst possible moment when the investor is at their most vulnerable.
It’s secret and insidious because very few investors are aware of its existence or its effect.
Investors Edge Finance recently contacted a number of bank managers and found, incredibly, that few of them were aware of this clause which makes it all the more frightening.
The difficulty is its secrecy, because you won’t find a clause called the “All Monies Mortgage Clause”. So, you have do a search and look for phrases which include words such as: ‘trigger a general default’, ‘material adverse change in circumstances’, ‘immediate repayment in full’, ‘you will be required to prove no adverse changes exist’, ‘break of any condition of this agreement’, ‘jointly and severally liable’ and ‘…all of your estate’.
So, what does the AMMC mean and how can the investor protect themselves from its imposition. The AMMC was originally designed to virtually eliminate the risk to the bank and load it on to the investor.
In essence, the clause gives the bank or lender the power to demand all loans be immediately repaid if any term or condition within the huge and complex loan contract is breached, or is liable to be breached.
The effect is to expose every security and savings, including the family home, to the total debt.
This is extremely serious and very dangerous.
Imagine, you buy an investment property and it turns out to be a dud. A default occurs with or without your knowledge including when your bank suspects a material adverse change in your circumstances. Your bank has the right to demand repayment, and in some circumstances to demand immediate repayment.
Your total debt level could, at that time, be well in excess of $1M. Imagine your chances of quickly (or at worst, immediately) securing that amount of finance with a new lender while in default with another lender.
You could lose everything.
How many mortgage products are on the market with this clause, and with whom ?
Need your help here guys in listing the known ‘all-monies’ mortgages and who offers them
So knowing what the ‘all-monies’ clause can cause, what can be done about it ?
My personal belief is this breaks the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations Act of 1999. This act states:

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

I believe that the above act applies to my situation as my wife and I were unaware, at the time of signing the contract, that what we were signing for was an ‘all-monies’ mortgage account. At no time did the RBS Group make us aware of this fact. Had we been informed of the true facts of this contract at the time of signing, we would have asked that it be removed or would simply have not taken on this agreement. The agreement we signed with the RBS Group was not individually negotiated as it is a standard policy that the RBS Group operates. Therefore, I contend that the agreement falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations of 1999.
Unfortunately, I was not allowed the opportunity to make this point at court.
What is frightening from a consumer point of view, is that most people will be completely unaware that they may have such a clause in their mortgage contract. It will come as a mighty shock to them should anything ‘adverse’ affect their ability to pay their debts. Furthermore, if they also have further borrowing with the same lender, then even an accidental default of payment of the other borrowing will enable the Bank to seize their property and most District Judges will state that they are unable to intervene and grant such a possession order, placing the consumer is severe trouble.

But this is not the end of the story. A number of litigants who have been trying to reclaim unfair Mortgage Redemption Fees have found themselves landed with huge legal bills, despite winning their cases, based on ANOTHER clause in their mortgage contract which effectively enables the banks to do whatever they like. This clause is called the Indemnity Clause.

Should I choose to appeal against this decision and be successful in getting my home back, I will still in effect lose as RBS will then use the indemnity clause which means that I would have to pay all legal costs rising out of any action relating to the contract. They can and will get judgement which could run into 000's of £'s (as has already been seen in the ERC Cases).
In ERC Cases, the Banks were seen to pursue until they either get the money or bankruptcy, they will do this to make an example and make sure they are never challenged again. In the ERC Cases there were huge losses incurred despite the litigants winning their cases against the banks.
This means that the banks are covered on all angles and are at liberty to do what they want, when they want. This is totally contradictory to what British Law is supposed to stand for and I believe that the Banks are blatantly abusing the Law to protect their interests, at the expense of the consumer, and perform whatever action they choose knowing that the average consumer will not have the funds to resist.
This is a highly unfair situation that exists and one that simply should not be allowed in Gordon Brown’s Fairer Britain. Large organisations such as the Banks cannot be allowed to act in such a way.
I wonder if the Chancellor Of The Exchequer – Alisdair Darling – is aware of these practices being exercised by the Banks ?
Indeed, I wonder if Mervyn King at the Bank Of England is aware of this ?
The one thing I do know is that in the current economic climate, repossessions are on the rise as more and more people (like myself) find themselves in Financial difficulty

[Sapphire]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

At Swansea County Court on 29th July 2008, I was told by the RBS solicitor that he had been instructed by his client to seek total repossession and accept nothing less. This means that the written agreement I had received from RBS Collections was not worth the paper it was written on.

The District Judge at Swansea County Court, granted a repossession order to RBS in a hearing that lasted just 3 minutes. He was not at all interested in hearing any arguments from my side.


How about adding the bit about as you are unemployed and had to use legal aid, that you think it extremely unfair and insulting that they saw fit to send an office junior to do a solicitors job, and that the said office junior was bricking it when faced with being in court, and therefore did not make any of the relevant points that you had prepared earlier and that you fully expected him to at least have a go at using it in your defence.

[scoobydoo]

Re: All monies on clause mortgages

Jester

While I totally agree with what you are saying above - I think you should be careful about appearing to say that you agreed to make payments that you could not afford.

As far as I know there are two reasons the judge could have agreed to the order

1) he thought there was no way you could make your payment in the future and the arrears would have increased
2) The all monies clause

I think you should emphasise or show you thought you could have made interest only payments for a period of time to enable you to sell the house or find employment .

Therefore that would indicate the all monies clause was the reason the order was granted

If you take this further and then it is proved you could not have afforded payments unfortunately the clause becomes irrelevant in your particular case?



IMO