LPA Receiver issue

John64

Hi - wonder whether any one can help.

I have a buy to let property that was included in my BR. The property was in negative equaty and so was passed back to the lender who has placed it in the hands of an LPA Receiver. The LPA Reciever collects all income and pays all costs relating to the property with any shortfall being added to the capital loan. The property stays in my name.

The lender has informed me that I am still the 'owner' of the property and that after discharge I will continue to have a liability for the property. They believe that if at some stage the property returns to having equity in it that I would be able to sell it and any equity would come to me. Conversely, presumably I would be liable for any shortfall should the lender force a sale and the sale price didn't cover the capital.

Anyone got any experience of this? I assumed that the asseets and losses of the property would be included in the BR? If the property was later sold I assumed the OR would get the profit or the loss would be included in the BR.

Hope someone can help.

Thanks

debtinfo

The shortfall or profit would go into the bankruptcy if it is returned

Darnit_2

You are right, either the LPA receiver doesn't know what they are talking about or someone is trying to get you to start paying for something that you don't have to. However, I have a similar problem. My buy-to-let isn't rented, as the receiver said they didn't want to be "landlords", and so when I explained, the tenant agree to leave. The bank are doing nothing about it despite my mortgage arrears, and my agreement to voluntary repossession, the official receiver thinks it should have been repossessed by now (so do I, but I can't make them do it) and there are ongoing costs such as community charges, insurance which the receiver won't allow for in my IPA SOA calculation. Its all a bit of a mess really. Strange isn't it, when I got legal advise prior to BR, my advisor told me after court I could just walk away from it and it would all be taken care of. Fat chance of that.

John64

In my case the LPA reciever accepts that all costs, including council tax, insurance, maintenance, will be picked up by them - which the lender appears to be happy about. What I can't understand is what the benefit to the lender is that I somehow stay the notional 'owner'? At the BR it was made clear to me that all 'interests' in the property passed to the OR - so I have no 'interest' in the property, no power to do anything with the property, get no benefit or liability from selling or renting it... how come I'm the 'owner' still?

I've heard of lots of people walking away from properties after BR but obviously it doesn't happen for everyone.