Just want to say I haven't gone quiet, but we are at a rather critical stage and so don't feel able to add anything else until the lawyers have done their talking. As soon as there is any definitive news, I will post on this thread.
I am, however, really grateful to all of the boat owners who have posted - even the critical ones - you have helped me in a number of ways. I only wish I had known then what i know now when: 1/ I was a green landlubber buying my first boat through a crooked dealer and 2/ when I decided against spending the £200 fare to London and a day off work to attend court for a boat I'd already lost to my ex and was worth hardly anything (relatively speaking).
My current course of action (that I can mention) is to defend the Statutory Demand served against me for the (£27500 ish that the defaulting borrower owes them); to do this, the Bank has to either accept that it does not wish to enforce the High Court judgement against me (or the defendant) and release me from this, or I have to overturn this judgement.
As the stakes have now been raised to £27500 (and rising with interest) I now have every incentive to take this back to the High Court with appropriate representation.
One thing's for sure: the only way I'll be on the water this summer is on my kayak with a bass rod - which is where I'll be tonight
Do keep us informed, as and when you can. I'm sure everyone here wishes you the best of luck.
Yep good luck and please report back. interesting that you bought the boat from a dealer. Hopefully your legal advisers or you appreciate the difference between stock and brokerage boats.
Dealer's gone skint Pete.
Originally Posted by petem
Just a thought ...
The bank must know who they lent the money to.
And they must know that it wasn't the OP.
And if the court gained the impression that the OP was the one who had defaulted on the loan, that must be because the Bank misled it.
Isn't it a fairly serious criminal offence to make a misrepresentation with the intention of causing another to suffer loss?
And isn't it another serious crime to mislead a court of law?
The legal system is disgusting and is clearly weighted against the ordinary man. It is obvious that the banks get a favourable and unfair result at the enormous cost to an individual. The judge should no regard to you or any morale fibre when he made that decision. It is pure gansterism and theft. You have been wronged badly here, the judge saw the banks were at a loss and you were the easy target. It is like a mafia system. There is no way whatsoever that the bank should be entitled to the mortgage AND the boat, it should be either/or, and of course it should only be the previous owner who signed the morgage who should have to pay. I can imagine how you are feeling, I have little respect for the legal system or the banks, and judgements like this only reinforce how disgusting they are and how they are out to take advantage of the public.
I do hope you have success in fighting this, it really is disgusting that they can take the boat and still expect to be paid the mortgage on it. I hope you refuse to give them a single penny, and they shouldn't get any money back from either you or the previous owner while they have the boat.
Best of luck and I hope you find a way out of this mess.
What a load of ignorant bollox
Indeed, becuase he was a no-show. He didn't bother to turn up to the court or enter any defence. If he had, the judge would have shown him much regard
Originally Posted by zarathustra
The bank are not entitled to both, and the judge never said they were. That has been confirmed in this thread
Originally Posted by zarathustra
No contradiction but you need to read a little between the lines.
Originally Posted by timbartlett
What this means, I believe, is:
Originally Posted by LOMBARD NC FAQs
a loan below a certain threshold (whatever "a particularly large level of finance" means) will be on a (unsecured) personal loan, so no registration, whether Part I or SSR, needed.
if a a loan is above the threshold, then security (marine mortgage) is required and LNC will insist on Part I registration.
It does not say that LNC takes unregistered security (i.e. a mortgage on an unregisterd vessel). It is POSSIBLE they do so but, I think, highly unlikely, or only for a short period (e.g. pending completion of Part I registration).
I hate that-like reading a Grisham novel and finding the last chapter missing :-) what happened? what happened?