Discovering that your bridging lender has appointed a Law of Eigenschaft<\/a> Act (LPA<\/a>) or fixed charge receiver<\/a> is one of the most critical moments in a Immobilienentwicklung<\/a> or investment project. Bridging loans are designed as short-term, fast-liquidity options. However, their high interest rates and rigid maturity dates mean that if an exit strategy fails, default<\/a> happens quickly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Im Gegensatz zu herk\u00f6mmlichen Hypothekenanbietern warten \u00dcberbr\u00fcckungskreditgeber selten monatelang auf Verhandlungen. Sie machen routinem\u00e4\u00dfig von ihren vertraglichen Befugnissen Gebrauch, um Gerichte g\u00e4nzlich zu umgehen, und bestellen unabh\u00e4ngige Zwangsverwalter, die die Kontrolle \u00fcber die besicherte Immobilie \u00fcbernehmen, diese verwalten und verkaufen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are a borrower facing<\/a> this situation, your immediate question is simple: Can I stop them? <\/p>\n\n\n\n To successfully challenge<\/a> a receiver, you must first understand the legal mechanism behind their appointment. Under \u00a7 101 des Gesetzes \u00fcber das Eigentumsrecht von 1925<\/a>, a lender gains the statutory<\/a> power to appoint a receiver the moment the mortgage money becomes due. Bridging loan<\/a> agreements<\/a>\u00a0usually\u00a0expand these statutory powers through express\u00a0contractual clauses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n A unique aspect of an LPA or fixed charge receiver is their legal status. In almost all bridging deeds, the receiver is contractually designated as the agent of the borrower, not the lender. This structure provides distinct advantages<\/a> to the lender: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The most direct way to stop a receiver is to prove that their appointment was legally invalid from the outset. Because receivership is a harsh remedy<\/a>, lenders must follow strict legal procedures. Any procedural<\/a> flaw can make the appointment void, rendering the receiver a trespasser on your property. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In circumstances where receivers are taking steps to sell your asset below market value, borrowers will often look into whether it is possible to apply to the High Court for an urgent interim injunction<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To secure an injunction, your legal team<\/a> must satisfy the court on several fronts under the established American Cyanamid<\/em> Grunds\u00e4tze: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Borrowers must note that courts are generally reluctant to stop a lender from enforcing<\/a> their security<\/a> unless the borrower pays the disputed sum into court. However, an injunction can be granted without this requirement if you can demonstrate fraud, a clear calculation error by the lender, or that the receiver is acting in bad faith. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bereitstellung des\u00a0Menon gegen Pask<\/a><\/em>\u00a0Defence\u00a0for Homeowners<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the bridging loan is secured against your personal Wohnen<\/a> home, or if you live inside the property as an owner-occupier, the landscape changes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In dem wegweisenden Fall Menon gegen Pask<\/em>, hat der High Court klargestellt, wie Insolvenzverwalter mit Kreditnehmern umgehen m\u00fcssen, die die Immobilie weiterhin bewohnen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court confirmed that while receivers have the legal right<\/a> to bring possession claims against borrowers in their own names, individual<\/a> residential borrowers can protect themselves using \u00a7 36 des Gesetzes \u00fcber die Rechtspflege von 1970.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under Section 36, a judge has the discretionary power to adjourn possession proceedings, or suspend an eviction<\/a> order, if the borrower can show they can clear the arrears or redeem the loan within a “reasonable period.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n To successfully invoke this defence against a bridging receiver, you must present concrete, verifiable evidence<\/a> to the judge, such as: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bridging disputes rarely centre on the principal sum alone, they are frequently driven by the rapid accumulation of default interest<\/a>, exit fees, and facility charges<\/a>. If these costs make repayment impossible, you can attack the underlying debt structure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, courts have broad powers to rewrite loan agreements<\/a> if they find the relationship between the lender and borrower is unfair. This protection can apply to kommerziell<\/a> bridging loans if the borrower is an individual or partnership<\/a>. Factors that trigger an unfair relationship include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nach dem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs in Cavendish Square Holding BV gegen El Makdessi<\/em>, ist eine Verzugsgeb\u00fchr nicht durchsetzbar, wenn sie \u00fcberzogen oder exorbitant ist oder es ihr an einer legitimen wirtschaftlichen Rechtfertigung mangelt. Werden die Verzugsgeb\u00fchren gestrichen, kann der Verzug geheilt werden, wodurch die Zwangsverwaltung ung\u00fcltig wird. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Receivers move quickly. The moment they are appointed, they will contact<\/a> your tenants, insurers, and estate agents to seize control of the asset’s income and management. Doing nothing increases the risk of the loss of your property. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Um die Empf\u00e4nger zu stoppen, m\u00fcssen Sie innerhalb der ersten Tage nach der Ernennung Ma\u00dfnahmen ergreifen: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior<\/a> Rechtsstreitigkeiten<\/a> Partner David Burns and <\/strong>Rechtsanwalt (Associate), <\/strong>Ben Lewis have extensive experience acting on behalf of borrowers where lenders have appointed receivers. For enquiries on this topic, please contact David Burns via<\/a> email d.burns@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> oder rufen Sie direkt unter 0207 467 5751 an oder kontaktieren Sie Ben Lewis per E-Mail unter B.Lewis@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> oder unter der Telefonnummer 0203 947 8892. <\/p>","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":9929,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[81],"class_list":["post-9928","insight","type-insight","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-property-litigation","tag-litigation-team-dj"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tDie Leistungsf\u00e4higkeit des Empf\u00e4ngers verstehen <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Das Paradoxon der Agentur<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Anfechtung der G\u00fcltigkeit der Ernennung\u00a0<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
H\u00e4ufige Verfahrensfehler<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Einsatz gerichtlicher Verf\u00fcgungen zur Verhinderung eines Verkaufs <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Die Abw\u00e4gung der Interessen<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Die finanzielle H\u00fcrde<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Das Urteil und der Schutz gem\u00e4\u00df \u00a7 36<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Versteckte Geb\u00fchren und unfaire Gesch\u00e4ftsbeziehungen in Frage stellen <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ungleiche Beziehungen (Verbraucherkreditgesetz von 1974<\/a>)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Unzul\u00e4ssige Vertragsstrafenklauseln<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ma\u00dfnahmen bei der Bestellung von Konkursverwaltern <\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Kontakt \u2013 David Burns, Senior-Partner im Bereich Prozessf\u00fchrung, und Ben Lewis, Rechtsanwalt<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n