House repossessed - Continue with Buildings Insurance?

leojones123

My house has been repossessed. The house is still on my name but in the possession of the mortgage lender.

Is it in my interest to continue paying the buildings insurance for the repossessed property?

I am assuming it is now the responsibility of the lender to purchase building insurance. Is this correct? Please help.

Thanks in advance.

Leo Jones

m4ndd

Hi Leo

Bit confused as to why you say the house is still in your name? Have you had you eviction date and has this passed?

I left my house in December and stopped paying the buildings insurance, although that was a big risk with the winter weather. I made sure i turned the power and water off. If your house has def been repossessed then it isn't your responsibility to insure it. My house was finally repossessed in July and 6 weeks later was on the market for sale.

Amanda

leojones123

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes the eviction date was 28 July 2009. This was my second property that was rented out. The tenaants moved out without paying a month earlier. The guy next door told me the locks had been changed by some guys from the mortgage company on the above date. So yes it has been repossessed.

Bloo_Loo

it remains your property until sold.

the banks has possession so they should be covering it, no only for their interest but yours to, as is their duty under the law.

mortgagemole2009

Bloo Loo is right, when the lender took possession they would have placed the property on their own buildings insurance policy, so you don't need to continue paying for a policy.

DVardysShadow

mortgagemole2009 wrote: »

Bloo Loo is right, when the lender took possession they would have placed the property on their own buildings insurance policy, so you don't need to continue paying for a policy.

In an ideal world, this would be the case [well perhaps not because there would be no repos]. But if the bank does not insure and the house burns down, then following your advice could be an expensive mistake for the OP. So why are you so sure that the bank will insure?

G_M

But if the bank does not insure and the house burns down, then following your advice could be an expensive mistake for the OP.

Why would it be expensive for the OP? He has lost the property (repossessed) and if/when it is sold, will not get the sale price - the bank will keep that!
If it burns down and the bank has to sell it as a burnt shell - well, the bank will get peanuts selling it and the OP will (still) get nothing.

PasturesNew

G_M wrote: »

Why would it be expensive for the OP? He has lost the property (repossessed) and if/when it is sold, will not get the sale price - the bank will keep that!
If it burns down and the bank has to sell it as a burnt shell - well, the bank will get peanuts selling it and the OP will (still) get nothing.

But they can chase you for up to 12 years for what's owed.... mostly they go completely quiet, then tap you up for the money 11 years and 11 months later, once you've got over it and re-established your life. The bill by then has doubled and they stand a good chance that you've got another property by then that they can extract more money from.

It is always in the interests of anybody who has been repossessed to present their property in the best state possible and to ensure nothing goes wrong between them moving out and it being re-sold.

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

Why would it be expensive for the OP? He has lost the property (repossessed) and if/when it is sold, will not get the sale price - the bank will keep that!
If it burns down and the bank has to sell it as a burnt shell - well, the bank will get peanuts selling it and the OP will (still) get nothing.

And will still owe the bank for the shortfall. Perhaps this will not be expensive in your eyes.

olias

Why not just ask the bank?

And get the reply in writing!

Olias