Has my sister been badly advised by Barclays and her solicitor?

Afro_Thunder

dopester wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that - cling on to that belief which obviously can't crumble given that the country has run out of money, we've printed up £180 billion, nationalised large swathes of the banking sector, and the deficit is growing by near half a billion pounds a DAY.

Sustainable only if their circumstances don't radically change. 2 TEACHERS buying via the Shared Ownership scam just before a General Election! Yet some people still believe in Labour's miracle economy glory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8603554.stm

Why did you post this? Do you think the OP is wrong to have faith and belief that is sister will be financially secure in the future like she is today? No one can predict the future, but people are entitled to remove positive. Anyone of us here can lose our jobs in the future! As Monkey_Joe said all we can do is behave sensible with our money and take each day as it come.

Next time, don’t be a prat! If you are incapable of contributing anything useful and actually answering the OP question then don’t bother posting anything at all.

Cannon_Fodder

I think there is a difference between generalised, "you might lose your job", and more specific concerns such as "public sector cuts are known to be coming, don't assume things will stay as they are".

Both being teachers could be considered a case of putting "all your eggs in one basket".

Usual MSE advice is to maintain 3 to 6 months emergency savings - do the 2 teachers have that, or is all their spare cash going into paying off the debt?

Monkey_Joe

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I think there is a difference between generalised, "you might lose your job", and more specific concerns such as "public sector cuts are known to be coming, don't assume things will stay as they are".

Both being teachers could be considered a case of putting "all your eggs in one basket".

Usual MSE advice is to maintain 3 to 6 months emergency savings - do the 2 teachers have that, or is all their spare cash going into paying off the debt?

Yes they are putting money aside into a saving accounts and have enough left over to pay more then the minimum on debts, pay the mortgage, eat, and enjoy life reasonably.

Yes all of the above may change but what has that got to do with my original question?

Afro_Thunder

Monkey_Joe wrote: »

Yes they are putting money aside into a saving accounts and have enough left over to pay more then the minimum on debts, pay the mortgage, eat, and enjoy life reasonably.

Yes all of the above may change but what has that got to do with my original question?

It has nothing to do with your original question.

You have made a couple of mistakes in regards to this forum

(1) Firstly you mentioned that your sister and her husband, where graduates. Mentioning qualifications or any form of higher education in these forums is a very bad idea especially if you want people to stick to the point and answer your actual questions.

This is not to say everyone is like that, there are a few who actually help and try to answer the question. However, there are many who would have their noses put out of joint by the mere mention of “education and qualification” and will take an instant dislike to you and will resort to irrelevant, petty and judgmental comments to depress and put you down.

(2) Secondly, you showed confidence and belief that your sister will be ok in the future. In the normal world this attitude is acceptable but here you meant to be negative and always think the worse. Any hint of confidence and it will trigger the things I mentioned in the second paragraph of point (1).

Don’t get me wrong; this is a great forum and there are many nice people (uni grads and school leavers) who have the skills, experience and knowledge to help you but they are outnumbered by the prats. All you can do is post your question and hope one of the nicer ones reply and just ignore the prats.

Cannon_Fodder

5 pages to say they have some savings. It might have a bearing, do you not think?

Now that we know they have savings, it could perhaps reduce your/their/Lender concerns.

If those savings are approaching/above the debt amount (it shouldn't be small change if they are providing a cushion against potential shocks to their joint income of £60k), then they could either;

- voluntarily pay all or at least a big chunk off the debts to "show willing" to the Lender.
or
- sleep easier knowing that if they became one of the random checks, they could quickly adhere to the condition if asked to do so.

Being MSE, depending on the interest being incurred, amounts involved, and the potential to maintain some emergency funds, it might be more beneficial to clear the debts, anyway - irrespective of any Lender condition.

Monkey_Joe

Afro_Thunder wrote: »

It has nothing to do with your original question.

You have made a couple of mistakes in regards to this forum

(1) Firstly you mentioned that your sister and her husband, where graduates. Mentioning qualifications or any form of higher education in these forums is a very bad idea especially if you want people to stick to the point and answer your actual questions.

This is not to say everyone is like that, there are a few who actually help and try to answer the question. However, there are many who would have their noses put out of joint by the mere mention of “education and qualification” and will take an instant dislike to you and will resort to irrelevant, petty and judgmental comments to depress and put you down.

(2) Secondly, you showed confidence and belief that your sister will be ok in the future. In the normal world this attitude is acceptable but here you meant to be negative and always think the worse. Any hint of confidence and it will trigger the things I mentioned in the second paragraph of point (1).

Don’t get me wrong; this is a great forum and there are many nice people (uni grads and school leavers) who have the skills, experience and knowledge to help you but they are outnumbered by the prats. All you can do is post your question and hope one of the nicer ones reply and just ignore the prats.

yes, I can see that now..:mad:

dopester

Monkey_Joe wrote: »

My sister and her husband have recently completed on a shared ownership flat. Her mortgage offer was from Woolwich and one of the conditions mentioned on the offer was that they both needed to pay off their £22k worth of debt 30 days after completion. Its been a week but there is no way they can do this.

They signed the contract in full knowledge this debt-repayment was a condition. If the don't and they do run into financial difficulties, then the lenders can show they haven't met the original conditions.

Monkey_Joe wrote: »

then they are indeed guilty of irresponsible lending, and the 30-day condition would be as likely to count against them as for them if they tried to use it to defend themselves."

My sisters debts is sustainable. Her and her husband have a combined salary of 60k. Its sustainable.

You say they've only just recently completed and yet already they/you are positioning for a claim as victims of irresponsible lending in the future. The ink on the contracts barely dry. What a hoot!

Your sister recording the Barclays rep rofl in the hope that if they do have problems they can wriggle out of it. Doesn't seem to me they're fully convinced themselves of their ability to service their 'sustainable' debts.

Monkey_Joe wrote: »

Therefore, based on the repeated assurances of both a Barclays rep and her solicitor she went ahead with completion. If many of you still think what she did was stupid then fair enough.

Yes I do think they've been stupid. You said it was fair enough if we think so. I think so and posted so. Especially when reading threads where people rush in then later try to claim they've oh-so-vulnerable and have been misled or missold something, to wriggle out of their obligations.

If they were uncomfortable with the debt repayment clause, she shouldn't have signed the contract. The real c*nts (as you put it) are the ones who are always trying to wriggle out of personal responsibility for their actions. Not those who are astonished at the crisis-prone situations people voluntarily put themselves in.

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I think there is a difference between generalised, "you might lose your job", and more specific concerns such as "public sector cuts are known to be coming, don't assume things will stay as they are".

Both being teachers could be considered a case of putting "all your eggs in one basket".

Exactly that. Sustainable so long as current employment and pay conditions continue uninterrupted into the future. There is a lot of evidence of severe cut backs coming, including for schools and teachers. Strike action is planned, as per the BBC News article. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to raise that against someone who keeps saying significant debt is so sustainable, as though it is very unlikely there are any major changes to teachers' jobs and pay in the pipeline.

inca_2

I was going to type a genuine response to your OP as I felt there have been some harsh and unnecessary response to your original question, however as soon as I saw this:

"Dont be a c*nt!"

I changed my mind...

rl290

Some quick answers to the original question

1. If your sister is found to have not paid off debt, banks don't just take the house back immediately. There is a fair bit of pressure on banks to be more understanding to borrowers, and they would probably come to an amicable agreement for debt repayment. As your sister has savings, this would help their cause a lot.

2. Lender is unlikely to look into this clause unless sister misses a payment. Event then, a missed mortgage payment doesn't automatically lead to repossession - an amicable agreement will be reached.

3. Your sister has been misled by both the solicitor and advisor. Let this teach her two lessons: (1) Don't trust in-house bank advisers as they are paid on a commission basis OR have earnings/rank determined by how many products they sell. They will lie or bend the details as needed. That said, in this case they actually gave an honest answer (that the contract isn't strictly adhered to), so what they did is not deplorable and they helped your sister take a product without worrying about an unenforced condition. (2) Don't use a family friend (especially on a free basis) to act as a solicitor. If anything goes wrong, like it may have here, then you have to take a friend to court.

4) Your sister KNEW what she was doing: she even went to the length of taping the conversation with Barclays to provide evidence for a later date. If she was unhappy with what was happening then SHE shouldn't have signed on the dotted line until she had more clarity (perhaps speaking to a solicitor she paid, who would be more likely to give the straight line answer - "you have to pay off debt" - rather than the more friendly and realistic advice she received - "don't worry, they never check this"). She, and here husband, are totally responsible for their own decisions and should learn from this experience.

R

Afro_Thunder

The OP sister has no lesson to learn. As I have said time and time again throughout this thread, its a standard condition Woolwich include in their offers these days. If you want to know go back and read my earlier posts, can not be bothered to repeat my self over and over.

The lenders made the offer after taking all debts into consideration. If they had an issue they would not have made the offer or they would have asked her to settle before completion.