Definition of "Mortgage Arrears"

Does anybody know the official definition of "mortgage arrears" ? I don't mean "How much money ?", or "How many months ?", but more basically, is it :
a) The lender doesn't have enough of the customer's money ; or
b) The lender might well have enough of the customer's money, but they have managed to keep it out of the mortgage account.
Possession decisions are based on Civil Procedure Rules Part 55, which uses the term ; but I can't find anyone in the Government who will tell me what it means.
Option (b) would seem : seriously unfair, a change of the contract I signed, and a Human Rights violation. Does anyone else have experience of a lender claiming it, and a judge accepting it ?
Thanks
«13

Comments

  • glosoli
    glosoli Posts: 739 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    I would imagine it's when the customer falls behind their payment schedule, and solutions such as funding it from an overpayment pot have been exhausted. As far as I am aware if you hold funds in say a current account with the same lender then they can effectively begin debiting the repayments from that.

    I am not sure how human rights enter the equation. Whats the situation?
  • enthusiasticsaver
    enthusiasticsaver Posts: 15,573 Ambassador
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper I've been Money Tipped!
    Mortgage arrears are missed mortgage payments. If you are saying the lender misapplied the payments they are unlikely to take someone to court for repossession. Usually the account is at least 3 months in arrears before legal action started.
    I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the Debt free Wannabe, Budgeting and Banking and Savings and Investment boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.
  • Geoff1963
    Geoff1963 Posts: 1,088 Forumite
    I was in the middle of PPI complaint with the FOS.
    The lender said in court, effectively, "We may well owe the customer far more than he owes us, but we have managed to keep his money out of the mortgage account, so can we have his home ?"
    The judge said, effectively, "Sure. If it isn't in the mortgage account, that's all that matters.
    Now they have paid up, it means they had enough of my money all along, and since my contract said "Pay to the bank", rather than "Pay into the mortgage account of the bank", the government evicted me on a condition that it created. The Ministry of Justice, who write the rules, can't tell me if that is the proper outcome.
  • Geoff1963
    Geoff1963 Posts: 1,088 Forumite
    The lender had made me an offer for PPI redress, which I thought was too small. They threatened repossession, to blackmail me into accepting it ; and when I held out for an FOS decision, they claimed possession, and got my home. Years later, I've had back much more than the mortgage arrears.
    I say that if they owed me for PPI, they had my money in time, and it doesn't matter what they called it. If that isn't true, then if I get a tax refund and call it a donation to my holiday fund, HMRC will have to pay me again, repeatedly. The government web-site on bankruptcy and PPI says the the eventual recipient was always the owner of the money.
  • GarthThomas
    GarthThomas Posts: 164 Forumite
    They did not "owe" you PPI until a judgement was made. If, while you were making this argument, you were in arrears then yes, they are able to take your house. Don't fall behind in your payments on your. Mortgage, it is a priority debt.

    If I have a savings account with a bank, but fail to pay my mortgage, the my hose can be repossessed. It's the same here.
  • Geoff1963
    Geoff1963 Posts: 1,088 Forumite
    That's what I first thought, but search gov.uk for "Bankruptcy" and "PPI". It says that if a bankrupt person gets PPI redress, it goes instead to their creditors ; because the person owned that money throughout the time the PPI seller had it.
    If you gave money to a taxi-driver, would you be expected to be convicted for not paying, if he could show a pocket in his jacket, which your money hadn't reached ?
    A bank can easily prevent your money moving within its organisation, so if that is the rule, then no-one has Security of Tenure ( = Human Rights ).
  • Paully232000
    Paully232000 Posts: 2,108 Forumite
    Surely you dont think that you are not in mortgage arears, when you are behind in your mortgage payments, even if you may, sometime in the future, possibly be owed money by the same organisation that holds your mortgage account.
  • David_White
    David_White Posts: 892 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Are you essentially saying that you shouldn't have been penalised for not paying your mortgage because you had a potential PPI refund on the horizon from the mortgage lender?
    I am a Mortgage Broker
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Broker, so you need to take my word for it.
    This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser code of conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
  • Geoff1963
    Geoff1963 Posts: 1,088 Forumite
    I'm saying that if government rules would take PPI redress off a bankrupt person, because they are considered to have owned the money ( even though it was in the PPI-sellers possession ) between paying the PPI, and getting it back ; then I should not be considered to be in mortgage arrears, simply because the bank for a time thought ( or said it thought ) it owned the money.
    HMRC don't want income tax on the whole of the redress, only the 8 % compensatory simple interest ; because they believe you are getting back, what was always yours.

    Let's say you take a 3 month holiday, leaving enough money in your current account for the mortgage payment, and a Direct Debit to transfer the money into the mortgage account. As your flight is called, the bank takes all of the money out of your current account, and stops making mortgage payments. Two months later, a court grants them possession of your home. When you get back off holiday, the bank regrets its mistake, and gives you the money it took out of your current account ; but you get a bill for their court fees, a demand for the shortfall on the sale, and a CCJ.

    Let's say you are owed a tax refund, and pay the cheque into your holiday deposit account. Would HMRC agree to pay you again, if you could show the money wasn't in your current account ?

    A mortgage account is a virtual place in the bank's financial system, to which no customer has access. If it can create "mortgage arrears" by moving, or not moving, money that a customer has given it, within its organisation ; then they can do that to anyone, at any time, and no-one has Security of Tenure. I've asked the bank, and the Ministry of Justice, if that is true ; but neither will answer me. If anyone else can get an answer, I'd appreciate it.
  • mrginge
    mrginge Posts: 4,843 Forumite
    The NHS is just about back up and running. I suggest you get yourself booked in sharpish.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards