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 promo\u00e7\u00e3o imobili\u00e1ria<\/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 Ao contr\u00e1rio dos prestadores de cr\u00e9dito hipotec\u00e1rio tradicionais, os credores de cr\u00e9dito-ponte raramente esperam meses para negociar. Recorrem habitualmente a poderes contratuais para contornar totalmente os tribunais, nomeando administradores judiciais independentes para assumir o controlo, gerir e vender o im\u00f3vel dado em garantia. <\/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 Artigo 101.\u00ba da Lei sobre a Propriedade de 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> princ\u00edpios: <\/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 Implementa\u00e7\u00e3o do\u00a0Menon contra Pask<\/a><\/em>\u00a0Defence\u00a0for Homeowners<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the bridging loan is secured against your personal residencial<\/a> home, or if you live inside the property as an owner-occupier, the landscape changes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n No caso hist\u00f3rico de Menon contra Pask<\/em>, o Supremo Tribunal esclareceu a forma como os administradores judiciais devem lidar com os mutu\u00e1rios que ocupam os im\u00f3veis. <\/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 Artigo 36.\u00ba da Lei da Administra\u00e7\u00e3o da Justi\u00e7a de 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 comercial<\/a> bridging loans if the borrower is an individual or partnership<\/a>. Factors that trigger an unfair relationship include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Na sequ\u00eancia da decis\u00e3o do Supremo Tribunal no processo Cavendish Square Holding BV contra El Makdessi<\/em>, uma taxa de incumprimento n\u00e3o \u00e9 aplic\u00e1vel se for desmesurada, exorbitante ou se n\u00e3o tiver uma justifica\u00e7\u00e3o comercial leg\u00edtima. Se as taxas de incumprimento forem suprimidas, o incumprimento poder\u00e1 ser sanado, invalidando a liquida\u00e7\u00e3o judicial. <\/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 Para suspender os benefici\u00e1rios, \u00e9 necess\u00e1rio agir nos primeiros dias ap\u00f3s a nomea\u00e7\u00e3o: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior<\/a> Contencioso<\/a> Partner David Burns and <\/strong>Advogado Associado, <\/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> ou ligue diretamente para o n\u00famero 0207 467 5751 ou contacte Ben Lewis por e-mail atrav\u00e9s do endere\u00e7o B.Lewis@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a> ou pelo telefone 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\tCompreender o poder do recetor <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
O Paradoxo da Ag\u00eancia<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Contesta\u00e7\u00e3o da validade da nomea\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a0<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Falhas processuais comuns<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Recorrer a medidas cautelares para impedir uma venda <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
O equil\u00edbrio de conveni\u00eancia<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
O obst\u00e1culo financeiro<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A decis\u00e3o e a prote\u00e7\u00e3o prevista no artigo 36.\u00ba<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Contestar taxas ocultas e rela\u00e7\u00f5es desleais <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Rela\u00e7\u00f5es desiguais (Lei do Cr\u00e9dito ao Consumidor de 1974<\/a>)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Cl\u00e1usulas de penaliza\u00e7\u00e3o ilegais<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Medidas a tomar quando s\u00e3o nomeados administradores judiciais <\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Contacte-nos \u2013 David Burns, s\u00f3cio s\u00e9nior da \u00e1rea de contencioso, e Ben Lewis, advogado<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n