75 year old sold 25 year mortgage

antrobus

I'm guessing here, but I assume that the property was in the sole name of your friend's late father, and so after he'd built up some large debts, he was able to clear said debts by mortgaging the property. And now that he's died, his widow has suddenly discovered the awful truth. I can quite understand why she (and indeed her relatives) might be unhappy at this turn of events. It must be something of a shock to suddenly discover that your home is the subject of a mortgage that you knew nothing about.

I'd make the following points:-

• M-Day, when regulation was extended to the mortgage industry, was 31 October 2004. The mortgage was sold in 2003.
• Selling a mortgage where the term extends past retirement age can be classed as mis-sold if no consideration was taken as to how the borrower would be able to make repayments past retirement. However the borrower in question was already over retirement age when the advance was made, and was (presumably) able to make the repayments thereafter.
• As a previous poster noted, if the mortgage was raised to simply pay off existing debt; now that the borrower is dead, it doesn't really matter whether the borrowings were unsecured or secured. If your friend's late father hadn't taken out the mortgage, he'd still have died owing £175k, and his executors would be obliged (in the last ditch) to sell the property to clear the debt.

Hence my conclusions would be that, the mortgage mis-selling regulations don't reply, and even if they did the broker would have a solid defence.

BLT_2

toddle2u wrote: »

Came on here asking for genuine advice for a friend and instead get abuse from a load of wanabee's and IFA's who condone such behaviour as rightful. Luckily the mortgage market is now regulated and selling a mortgage (using a broker) where the term extends past retirement age can be classed as mis-sold.

Well don't bother then as you have nothing constructive to say old timer

They knew nothing about it nor did his wife



Sorry I would have called it responsible lending not ageist

Careful, I think you just dropped your dummy out of the pram :rotfl:

ILW

Still cannot see the problem, the money was owed anyway, just to a different lender. Makes no difference whether secured or not.
What does the OP wish to achieve by claiming miss selling?

ess0two

ILW wrote: »

Still cannot see the problem, the money was owed anyway, just to a different lender. Makes no difference whether secured or not.
What does the OP wish to achieve by claiming miss selling?

Bigger slice of inheritance pie?

ILW

ess0two wrote: »

Bigger slice of inheritance pie?

Cannot see it would make any difference, any debts would need to be settled from the estate anyway.

dunstonh

ILW wrote: »

Cannot see it would make any difference, any debts would need to be settled from the estate anyway.

I reckon that the OP (and friend) was incorrectly assuming that unsecured debts dont need to be repaid on death.

ILW

dunstonh wrote: »

I reckon that the OP (and friend) was incorrectly assuming that unsecured debts dont need to be repaid on death.

Sounds likely, funny the way the word "inheritance" addles peoples brains.

Trollfever

£170k of unsecured debts indicates some very nice holidays and cars.

ILW

Trollfever wrote: »

£170k of unsecured debts indicates some very nice holidays and cars.

Think the OPs "friend" is rather miffed at the old boy for blowing their inheritance on himself. How dare he.

Gorgeous_George

If the mortgage hadn't been approved, a Court would need to decide whether or not to force the sale of the house to clear insecured debts following his death. With a secured loan, it is far more straightforward.

I offered no advice because I do not know the answer. Morally, I think all debt should be repaid - however it needs to be raised. My view remains that I hope that the old boy enjoyed spending his money. Maybe he didn't like his family much.

GG