GLC to participate in free Scottish mortgage repossession conferences

GLC's Principal Solicitor will be speaking at a free conference focussing on recent legislative and case law changes in Scottish mortgage repossession law, in Glasgow on 3 December 2012.

The event is being hosted and sponsored by the Carrington Dean Group. Mike will provide a review of recent Scottish case law, with a focus on statutory pre-action requirements and the issue of legal costs and charges in repossession cases. Other confirmed speakers include, Citizen Advice Scotland, Irwin Mitchell Solicitors and Tom McEntegart, managing director of TLT Solicitors. The conference will include an afternoon panel debate session chaired by advocate and Scottish Legal Action Group chairman, Robert Sutherland.

The conference will be held in the Laprohaig Theatre, Teacher’s Building, Glasgow on the December 3, 2012. A shorter seminar will be held in the Ramada Encore Hotel in Inverness on December 6. Anyone interested should contact alanmcintosh@carringtondean.com in the first instance. Both events are free to advisers and solicitors working in the industry.

Lenders new PAR arguments rejected in NRAM, Santander & Nationwide v. Doyle and 4 others

New legal arguments by Aberdein Considine & Co., solicitors on behalf of three UK lenders have been rejected in a Scottish judgement from Sheriff Deutsch at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The judgment pertains to five separate mortgage repossession actions which were heard together earlier this year, with GLC's Principal Solicitor acting for all five defenders.

The 'Doyle judgment' provides helpful discussion on what lenders need to do to satisfy the 2010 Pre-Action Requirements (PAR) Order, with examples of three cases which failed to meet the 'minimum standard' required under the 2010 Order, and two cases which met the statutory test.

The Pursuers' solicitors unsuccessful challenged the ratio in Northern Rock (Asset Management) Plc v. Millar 2012 SLT (Sh Ct) 58, but had also set forward a number of new legal arguments which had not been considered in Millar. A number of new propositions were advanced, including: that the Interpretation Act 1978 did not apply; 'default' was truly under standard condition 9(1)(b); there should be a flexible time for PAR compliance; and that there was no mandatory requirement to comply with regulation 2 of the 2010 Order. All of these arguments were rejected by the court.

The Pursuers' solicitors were able to show that there had been actual compliance with the PAR in two out of the five cases, and accordingly these were continued to determine further procedure, while three actions were dismissed as incompetent. The full judgment is available here (online PDF).