Discovering that your bridging lender has appointed a Law of Property Act (LPA<\/a>) or fixed charge receiver<\/a> is one of the most critical moments in a d\u00e9veloppement immobilier<\/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 Contrairement aux pr\u00eateurs hypoth\u00e9caires traditionnels, les pr\u00eateurs de cr\u00e9dit relais attendent rarement plusieurs mois avant d'entamer les n\u00e9gociations. Ils ont syst\u00e9matiquement recours \u00e0 des pouvoirs contractuels pour contourner totalement les tribunaux, en d\u00e9signant des administrateurs judiciaires ind\u00e9pendants charg\u00e9s de prendre le contr\u00f4le, de g\u00e9rer et de vendre le bien immobilier donn\u00e9 en garantie. <\/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 Article 101 de la loi de 1925 sur le droit immobilier<\/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> principes : <\/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 D\u00e9ploiement du\u00a0Menon c. Pask<\/a><\/em>\u00a0Defence\u00a0for Homeowners<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the bridging loan is secured against your personal r\u00e9sidentiel<\/a> home, or if you live inside the property as an owner-occupier, the landscape changes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dans l'affaire historique de Menon c. Pask<\/em>, la Haute Cour a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 la mani\u00e8re dont les administrateurs judiciaires doivent traiter les emprunteurs occupant les locaux. <\/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 Article 36 de la loi de 1970 sur l'administration de la justice.\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 commercial<\/a> bridging loans if the borrower is an individual or partnership<\/a>. Factors that trigger an unfair relationship include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00c0 la suite de l'arr\u00eat rendu par la Cour supr\u00eame dans l'affaire Cavendish Square Holding BV c. El Makdessi<\/em>, des p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s de retard ne sont pas ex\u00e9cutoires si elles sont d\u00e9mesur\u00e9es, exorbitantes ou d\u00e9pourvues de justification commerciale l\u00e9gitime. Si ces p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s sont supprim\u00e9es, le manquement peut \u00eatre r\u00e9gularis\u00e9, ce qui rendrait la mise sous administration judiciaire caduque. <\/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 Pour mettre fin \u00e0 une mesure d'ex\u00e9cution, vous devez agir dans les premiers jours suivant la nomination : <\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior<\/a> Litiges<\/a> Partner David Burns and <\/strong>Avocat collaborateur, <\/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> courriel d.burns@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> ou appelez directement le 0207 467 5751, ou contactez Ben Lewis par e-mail \u00e0 l'adresse B.Lewis@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> ou par t\u00e9l\u00e9phone au 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\tComprendre le r\u00f4le du r\u00e9cepteur <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Le paradoxe de l'agence<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Contestation de la validit\u00e9 de la nomination\u00a0<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Vices de proc\u00e9dure courants<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Recourir \u00e0 des injonctions judiciaires pour emp\u00eacher une vente <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
L'\u00e9quilibre des int\u00e9r\u00eats<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
L'obstacle financier<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
La d\u00e9cision et la protection pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l'article 36<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Lutter contre les frais cach\u00e9s et les relations in\u00e9quitables <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Les relations in\u00e9quitables (Loi de 1974 sur le cr\u00e9dit \u00e0 la consommation<\/a>)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Clauses p\u00e9nales ill\u00e9gales<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Mesures \u00e0 prendre en cas de nomination d'administrateurs judiciaires <\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Nous contacter \u2013 David Burns, associ\u00e9 principal sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 dans le contentieux, et Ben Lewis, avocat<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n