I apologise for every word having a capital letter. For some reason the formatting has gone awry although it seems to have corrected itself now. It is of no significance so please ignore.
Well Have They Not Been Looking Hard to Find a Statement from December Which Included the Penalty.
However You Weren’t Relying on That Statement You Were Relying on the Current Statement and to My Mind, If They Admit Including It on the December One I Have To Admit Not Including on This One.
If They Could Include It Then, Regardless of How Difficult It Is to Make the Calculation, Then They Could Have Included It Now. They Should Have Done. They Didn’t.
To My Mind 1 December Statement Is Irrelevant.
I Think You Need to Ask Them the Question As to Why It Was Included in December and Why It Was Not Included Now. If They Did Not Include It in the Statement, Then How Are You Supposed to Know about It.
I Would Ask Them for Details of the Indemnity Insurer and Tell Them That You Are Going to Seek Advice from Another Firm of Solicitors with a View to Bring an Indemnity Claim against Them. Do They Wish to Come to Arrangements to Settle?
The HSBC Statement Says the Amount Required to Repay the Borrowing at 20 April Is 231,000.
It Then Says “an Early Repayment Charge May Be Applicable”.
Do Remember That the Solicitor Deals with These Kind of Redemption Statement All Day Long and They Are Expected to Read It States. It Can Be Misleading Because the Redemption Figure Should Be Said to Be Subject to a Early Repayment Charge and It Should Be in the Same Sentence
but Nonetheless, It’s Right Next to It. I Mention Once Again They Should Be Used to This.
If We Then Go to the Redemption Breakdown Figures on the Last Page, It’s Confusing Because There Is No Total.
However If You Add Them up It’s 229, 620
on the Front Page It’s 231.390
so Looking at This Statement, That’s All the Solicitor Has To Go on, I Wouldn’t Have a Clue What the Redemption Figure Was End of Its 231.390 Which Is the Highest Figure on the Paper, That’s What I Would Have Gone with.
The Difference between the Additions at the End Is 1770 and the Small Difference Amounts for Daily Rates of Interest.
The Redemption Statement of 30 November Is Irrelevant Because That Has Been and Gone. It Wasn’t Being Repaid in November Last, It Was Being Paid in This April.
So Looking at the Front Page of the Statement I Cannot See Why They Did Not, As I Did, Query Why the Figures on the Back Are Different Than the Figures on the Front. Ask the Question