Court case re old reposession help needed

rchddap1

Hi,

My partner's mother about 12 years ago had her house reposessed. Her sons tried to buy the house for her a couple of days later, but were told that it had already been sold at auction. Can they do this?

Now, the mortgage company that took the house are taking her to court to recover the cash owing from the old mortgage and 12 years of interest on top. Can they do this?

The other thing to make things even more complicated is that the land registry still have her as owner of the land / property (or whatever it is that they register). What does this mean? Does this mean that she is still the legal owner of the property and / or the land? What will happen when the new 'owners' try to sell the house?

I'd be grateful for any pointers as this is really causing some distress.

Thanks

Optimist

1 There is no reason why the mortgage company who reposessed the house should offer it to her sons to buy.
2 Yes, 12 years is the maximum they can go back, however thats not to say the courts will allow the claim. Depends on current circumstances see a soliciter.
3 If thats the information from the land registry and after 12 years you definately need a solicitor.
Most will give a free half hour

rchddap1

Thanks for the info.

Regarding question 1. Her sons offered to buy the house a day or two after the repossession. The company refused by saying that the house had already been sold at auction. Can auctions happen so fast?

Thanks for the info on question 2.

Optimist

The repossession process is quite lengthy but once the court has decided they will give a date to leave. The company acting for the mortgage company would know that date and their priority would be to get rid of the house and get money in. If there was an auction within a couple of days of the eviction then thats good luck/planning on their part. Even if it came to a forceable eviction they would still know the planned date of the eviction and put the house in for the auction as close as possible after that date.

GDB2222

rchddap1 wrote:

Thanks for the info.

Regarding question 1. Her sons offered to buy the house a day or two after the repossession. The company refused by saying that the house had already been sold at auction. Can auctions happen so fast?

It does sound quick. Perhaps they meant that they had agreed to put it in the auction. Does it matter, as they were under no obligation to deal with the sons? If they really wanted to help, why didn't the sons do something before the house was repossessed?

Something's wrong if the Land Registry record is still in her name, but I very, very, very much doubt that she can get the house back. She might get a couple of free beers for agreeing to sign the forms to regularise the position for the current owner. If someone is injured on the property, she might have proceedings served on her if she is shown as the owner, but I do not think there is any possibility of liability attaching to her.

If in doubt consult a lawyer (which I am not!)

rchddap1

She's going through a court case at the moment, but things are about as clear as mud at the moment

Robert_Sterling_3

When someone repossess a property I think they have a duty to get the best possible price. Can they do this if the property is not advertised as being available at an auction in time for people to view it and make arrangements to bid for it?

Sub_2

Robert_Sterling wrote:

When someone repossess a property I think they have a duty to get the best possible price. Can they do this if the property is not advertised as being available at an auction in time for people to view it and make arrangements to bid for it?

This is essentially correct. The lender, having repossesed the property, is under a legal obligation to obtain the best price they can for the house. This means marketing it properly and disposing of it in a transparent and responsible manner.

These laws are designed to stop unscrupulous lenders selling significant assets of financially troubled borrowers at knock down prices just to recover their own costs.

If this house was genuinely sold at auction two or three days after it was taken into possesion then something was very wrong, and it would be a simple matter to show that the lender failed to meet their legal obligations. This would have significant ramifications for the settlement but you'd need to discuss that with a solicitor.

I would be *very* surprised if this turns out to be the case. In many years of practice I didn't once come across this having happened. Any UK mortgage provider adopting this kind of post repossesion strategy would expose themselves to major risk of legal action.

You should establish with more accuracy the circumstances of the disposal of the house, but don't be surprised if it tunrs out that your information isn't entirely accurate.

rchddap1

Thanks for all the information. As I'm not the one in court I don't necessarily have all the facts, and I'm sure that her solicitor will help her as best he can. Her son and I just wanted to see if there has been anything that has been missed....and we thought of you guys.

I'll pass the info on, and I'll let you know (if I am able) how things go.

Sarahsaver

What was the outcome? I may be facing this with my mum soon:(

Curry_Queen

Thanks for bringing this up Sarah, as I'm also interested to know the outcome.

I had my home repossessed 5 years ago and the bank sold at auction very quickly for £30K less than market value, and as a result I'm left with a £15K shortfall to pay back. I've not yet paid them a penny back and I thought I would be free of the debt after 6 years, so to hear that they can still chase you up to 12 years is a bit of a shock :eek: