High Court blow for UK homeowners

StevieJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think each case should be judged on its own merits.
I have 2 BTL's and have 3 months emergency cash put away, however if things turned really horribly wrong for me I would hope that the lenders would take into consideration other factors into consideration such as the overpayments I have made and that I have LTV's of 53% and 38%.

Obviously if I did come into difficulties, I would immediately start discussions with my lender while utilising my 3 month emergency funds. I would hope that after the three months funds, I would have in place an alternative agreement.

There is no black and white.
It is not OO or BTL to judge the precedent.
Each case is judged on it's own unique specifications

I should imagine they would look at a reschedule of your loan being a sound commercial decision given your sound financial planning and LTV's. Some grasping lenders (esp in Dickens time) would pitch you out and make a profit ( can you think of anyone today who would do that?)

Dithering_Dad

abaxas wrote: »

Woot!

I'm off to tescos to steal some food. It's my hooman right not to pay INNIT

I love these internet warriors who wage war from the security of their parents back bedrooms. :rolleyes:

abaxas

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I love these internet warriors who wage war from the security of their parents back bedrooms. :rolleyes:

No war here, just contract law :P

jamesd

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think each case should be judged on its own merits.
I have 2 BTL's and have 3 months emergency cash put away, however if things turned really horribly wrong for me I would hope that the lenders would take into consideration other factors into consideration such as the overpayments I have made and that I have LTV's of 53% and 38%.

Of course the lenders would take that into consideration. It guarantees that after fees they will recover all of the money you still owe them.

Better to owe more and have a larger emergency fund.

jackie_w

abaxas wrote: »

God, this boils my blood.

Why should we feel sorry for people who don't pay their debts! The answer is, we shouldn't.

What kind of society find default acceptable? Sadly one that is dying :<

Take it from them if they dont pay. Simple as

Im sure my friend would see it from your point of view, after she found out that her daughter had leukemia, so had to stop working for a while. She lived off her savings for 5 months, then found she couldnt pay her mortgage.

I hope you never find yourself ever in a position like that.

ad44downey

Tightmartin wrote: »

Can't get too excited about BTL investors getting treated like this. The whole BTL philosophy is driven by greed - a money for nothing dream. Unfortunately life is not like that, and people should have forseen the property crash.

Exactly. Get the buy to let slummers out pronto

abaxas

jackie_w wrote: »

Im sure my friend would see it from your point of view, after she found out that her daughter had leukemia, so had to stop working for a while. She lived off her savings for 5 months, then found she couldnt pay her mortgage.

I hope you never find yourself ever in a position like that.

Ermmm,

She chose that situation by staying in her property. It is her fault for not adapting to the situation she found herself in.

Dispite her situation, she has no rights to maintain her standard of living, only responsibilities to pay back the future labour she sold by taking out a mortgage.

Sorry, for being so blunt. But that's the way it is.

kennyboy66_2

abaxas wrote: »

Incorrect.

Each case should be judged on the original contract and current laws.

Black and white is the ONLY way to deal with it. You cannot give advantage to those who have been disadvantaged.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that english law is about both statute and case law and the interpretation that judges put on statute law.
This case is about how the human rights act cannot be interpreted.

This ruling has a use in that it can be applied to BTL.

It is possible that a different judge and a similar case involving a owner occupier homeowner could rule that the 1925 act is incompatible with the HRA.

There are always calls after similar cases that "we need, better or more legislation".

It would perhaps be better left to judges.

abaxas

kennyboy66 wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand the fact that english law is about both statute and case law and the interpretation that judges put on statute law.
This case is about how the human rights act cannot be interpreted.

This ruling has a use in that it can be applied to BTL.

It is possible that a different judge and a similar case involving a owner occupier homeowner could rule that the 1925 act is incompatible with the HRA.

There are always calls after similar cases that "we need, better or more legislation".

It would perhaps be better left to judges.

Yes, but the case law element, due to the legal profession, is a function of money.

Maybe we need to legislate to remove the costs to individuals?

MissMoneypenny

Would it be the same if the LL had an owner occupier mortgage, didn't pay his mortgage for 2 months and hadn't asked permission to rent the property out?