The Claimant specialised in the buy-to-let market. The Defendant mortgagors ('D1' and 'D2', respectively) bought residential properties and let them mainly to students.
The Defendants fell into financial difficulty. The Claimant informed D1 that if over three months of arrears were to accrue then a receiver of rent would be appointed. The Claimant subsequently appointed receivers and formally demanded repayment on default.
D1 argued that the Claimant was estopped from making a demand unless at least three months of arrears were outstanding.
Steel J rejected D1's case. On the evidence, the most that could be said was that the Claimant had made plain that enforcement would follow if the arrears exceeded three months; not that it promised not to enforce its legal rights until that point. There was also no contemporaneous evidence of the Defendants changing their position in reliance of any such promise. In any event, the alleged promise would have only suspended the Claimant's right to enforce.
Rahul Varma / 6th Feb 2012
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.